Vilas Boas

[Anonymous]

You've got to think that if VB has agreed to move to Chelsea, Roman's offered him the keys to kingdom. Seemed for more logical for him to have spent another season at Porto having a crack at the CL...

Will be interesting to see if losing him as manager leads to a few of their to players wanting to move away...

 

[Castiel]

As good as this is for my club, I too was interested to see how he did with Porto in the CL. I was looking forward to him meeting Barca in the Super Cup too.

 

[Anonymous]

As good as this is for my club, I too was interested to see how he did with Porto in the CL. I was looking forward to him meeting Barca in the Super Cup too.

To be honest, I was secretly hoping Roman would get Hiddink...for some reason my gut was telling me that that would've gone tits up.

Unfortunately, I can see this appointment being the beginning of a new cycle at Chelsea...

 

[Danamy]

As good as this is for my club, I too was interested to see how he did with Porto in the CL. I was looking forward to him meeting Barca in the Super Cup too.

To be honest, I was secretly hoping Roman would get Hiddink...for some reason my gut was telling me that that would've gone tits up.

Unfortunately, I can see this appointment being the beginning of a new cycle at Chelsea...

So true including an upheavel and turnaround of players

 

[mancboy123]

Billy while i take your sage advice that I want to be wary of who I pick my fights with Ill bite on this:

1. What makes him a better man manager than mancini precisely. The only player who has had problems with mancini are tevez and bellamy and both of those are renowned for being their own person and having problems hence the number of clubs they have both racked up and given that avb has only managed one club it is hard to make the assumption that he is a better man manager than mancini.

2. Well that is a complete matter of opinion having not seen many of portos games I couldnt argue either way bar a couple of tonkings they gave in europe but the uefa cup final didnt look particularly free flowing or progressive but this one is totally hard to quantify because they are managers in different leagues playing at different standards.

3. If you had met mancini you would know he speaks fluent english whether he chooses to portray this to the media is his decision but anyone who has met him will tell you his english is more than up to par.

4.Steve McLaren and Brian Kidd have both been part of coaching set ups that won the premier league it didnt automatically transform them into premier league winning managers.

5. The fact that he won the league and uefa cup with his home town club yet is prepared to jump ship at the first sign of a better job suggest a mourinho esque likelihood of being out for himself and having no interest in building dynastys or anything of the like.

Im not a mancini fan or an avb fan i just wanted to point out a few instances where your reasoning is slightly off

 

[Anonymous]

As good as this is for my club, I too was interested to see how he did with Porto in the CL. I was looking forward to him meeting Barca in the Super Cup too.

To be honest, I was secretly hoping Roman would get Hiddink...for some reason my gut was telling me that that would've gone tits up.

Unfortunately, I can see this appointment being the beginning of a new cycle at Chelsea...

So true including an upheavel and turnaround of players

Going to be interesting seeing how Lampard, Terry, Drogba, and Anelka deal with it...

My opinion all four could end up going or at the very least end up being spectators rather than automatic starters come next season...

 

[simmers]

1. Better man manager
2. Plays a more attacking and progressive kind of football.
3. Speaks better English.
4. Has been part of a coaching set up which has won the premiership on more than one occassion.
5. Much younger and much more likely to build a dynasty than Mancini.

Those would be five - but to be honest you only need the first three to make the decision IMO.

Oh dear

Why did you ask the question then? Whatever I'd have answered would've elicited the same thoughtless reaction...

I asked the question to find out the reasons why he would be a better long term option to Mancini but I'm still none the wiser.

1. Better man manager - Care to elaborate, perhaps with examples?
2. Plays a more attacking and progressive kind of football - In the Portuguese league perhaps which is about the same standard of the English Championship. How can you be so sure he'd employ the same style in the Premiership?
3. Speaks better English - Pathetic reason.
4. Has been part of a coaching set up which has won the premiership on more than one occassion - So has Steve Clarke, would you have him as Manager?
5. Much younger and much more likely to build a dynasty than Mancini - Mancini is only 46, hardly reaching retirement age

 

[LoveCity]

Hulk and/or Falcao to Chelsea then?

RE: Mancini vs. Villas-Boas, no doubt Villas-Boas is the more exciting manager on paper but Mancini at this stage is more proven and successful. I do think Villas-Boas will probably surpass Bobby in time but it might not be instant.

 

[Jumanji]

How come he manages so young? Did he pick up an injury or was he a shit player?

He never played.

 

[Anonymous]

Billy while i take your sage advice that I want to be wary of who I pick my fights with Ill bite on this:

1. What makes him a better man manager than mancini precisely. The only player who has had problems with mancini are tevez and bellamy and both of those are renowned for being their own person and having problems hence the number of clubs they have both racked up and given that avb has only managed one club it is hard to make the assumption that he is a better man manager than mancini.

You'll have to take my word for just how appalling Mancini's man management skills are. People can choose to believe me or disbelieve me.

2. Well that is a complete matter of opinion having not seen many of portos games I couldnt argue either way bar a couple of tonkings they gave in europe but the uefa cup final didnt look particularly free flowing or progressive but this one is totally hard to quantify because they are managers in different leagues playing at different standards.

I agree it's hard to quantify. But if you read interviews with Villa Boas you'll see he talks about playing attractive attacking football being part of his philosophy. Whereas if you read interviews with Mancini you'll see that he talks about building from the back, and about being happy to win every game 1 - 0...

3. If you had met mancini you would know he speaks fluent english whether he chooses to portray this to the media is his decision but anyone who has met him will tell you his english is more than up to par.

Completely disagree. I have met Mancini (albeit early on in his tenure at City), but I thought his English was poor. The point is that certainly Villa Boas' is English is at the level where he can use the subtleties of the language to get the best out of a player. Not sure Mancini's there...

4.Steve McLaren and Brian Kidd have both been part of coaching set ups that won the premier league it didnt automatically transform them into premier league winning managers.

Can't argue with that...just think VB is of a different class to the two mentioned...

5. The fact that he won the league and uefa cup with his home town club yet is prepared to jump ship at the first sign of a better job suggest a mourinho esque likelihood of being out for himself and having no interest in building dynastys or anything of the like.

Disagree again completely. It's a bit like a player moving from Porto to Chelsea. You build dynasties at 'small' clubs like Porto - you build them at places like Chelsea...a friendly wager that VB is still at Chelsea in four years time?

To be quite honest, these are just my opinion and observations. There'll be plenty who'll disagree with me which I've no problem with. It's the dumb as nails, dull as dishwater "shut the fuck up with your anti mancini blah blah blah" which gets on my last nerve.