What's the difference between Mancini and Ferguson?

[waspish]

Red nose had 5 seasons to turn united into a decent team, Mancini has 1/2 seasons and a hell of a lot more money.

Nonsense, Fergie was signing the likes of Pallister for £2.3million (at the time the most expensive English central defender, Steve Bruce for nearly £1million and Neil Webb for £1.5million - he was spending money alright and it took Fergie FIVE years for the first piece of silverware.

In his third season he took them from 2nd to mid table. Undoubtedly had this message board (for the rags) been in existence the clamour for him to be sacked would have been palpable

The difference is that he now has full control and the security of his knowing his position is rock solid - that means that players know there will only be one winner at the rags and that is Fergie because his position is rock solid.

Fortunately for the powers that be at OT they had the foresight to recognise they had a good man and to give him the TIME to shape the club and make a massive cultural shift which is what is needed at our club.

The likes of Milner (who's not playing regularly) will play to the gallery to feed any anti-Mancini sentiment and that all serves to undermine the power the manager can wield.

Sadly our fans are not willing to afford any of our managers the time that is needed.

The three most successful clubs in recent years Liverpoo; (in their heyday), the rags and Arsenal have all had one thing and that is stability in management. We need to learn lessons from history.

Top post totally agree with you!

The difference between Mancini and Baconface! If you go of Mancini after 18 months in charge and Baconface after 18 months in charge! There's only 1 winner by a country mile! Mancini!

Baconface got time! Hope the people in charge give Mancini time!

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

In a nutshell?

Ferguson is a good manager. Mancini isn't.

This is about it.

 

[Jordie]

Red nose had 5 seasons to turn united into a decent team, Mancini has 1/2 seasons and a hell of a lot more money.

Nonsense, Fergie was signing the likes of Pallister for £2.3million (at the time the most expensive English central defender, Steve Bruce for nearly £1million and Neil Webb for £1.5million - he was spending money alright and it took Fergie FIVE years for the first piece of silverware.

In his third season he took them from 2nd to mid table. Undoubtedly had this message board (for the rags) been in existence the clamour for him to be sacked would have been palpable

The difference is that he now has full control and the security of his knowing his position is rock solid - that means that players know there will only be one winner at the rags and that is Fergie because his position is rock solid.

Fortunately for the powers that be at OT they had the foresight to recognise they had a good man and to give him the TIME to shape the club and make a massive cultural shift which is what is needed at our club.

The likes of Milner (who's not playing regularly) will play to the gallery to feed any anti-Mancini sentiment and that all serves to undermine the power the manager can wield.

Sadly our fans are not willing to afford any of our managers the time that is needed.

The three most successful clubs in recent years Liverpoo; (in their heyday), the rags and Arsenal have all had one thing and that is stability in management. We need to learn lessons from history.

Absolutely spot on.<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:27 am --<br /><br />

Power.

Baconface, Slur Alex, Whisky nose etc..... has ultimate power there, like it or not 99% of his team are at what they consider is the best club they could be at. And if they cross him, they will be out. In effect they have to fight to stay at the club every day. And when he tells you to do something, or play a certain way, they will do it.

A percentage of ours are too comfortable, they see the club as a stepping stone and wouldn't be too bothered if they don't spend the rest of their careers here. That will change. Some of our players think they are more powerful than the manager (and the manager before, and the manager before), that will also change.

Very true, we need to give him time and it will come good. I have no doubts.

 

[Soulboy]

"Well known"... what does that mean?

Something the press wrote about?

Or did the board actually come out and say that?

Every interview Martin Edwards has given confirms the fact that they were never considering sacking Ferguson had he lost at Forest.

Do you actually have other evidence to prove your point that it was "well known"? OIr are you relying on unsubstantiated gossip?

Of course the bent buthchers son would say that after success arrived. Lets say the perceived wisdom was that considering Fat Ron had actually won something in less time AND got sacked , Whiskey nose would have had a worse record after 4 years in charge. Edwards is a fookin serial liar btw. You´re right in a way that no-one knows the exact truth but come on I remember the papers were full of it at the time

Ah... the papers were full of it. That's enough evidence for me then! ;-))

The papers were also "full of it" that Avram Grant was being sacked a few months ago. I mean, it's not as if the papers make stuff up to sell their advertising space is it?<br /><br />-- Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:33 am --<br /><br />

Nonsense, Fergie was signing the likes of Pallister for £2.3million (at the time the most expensive English central defender, Steve Bruce for nearly £1million and Neil Webb for £1.5million - he was spending money alright and it took Fergie FIVE years for the first piece of silverware.

In his third season he took them from 2nd to mid table. Undoubtedly had this message board (for the rags) been in existence the clamour for him to be sacked would have been palpable

The difference is that he now has full control and the security of his knowing his position is rock solid - that means that players know there will only be one winner at the rags and that is Fergie because his position is rock solid.

Fortunately for the powers that be at OT they had the foresight to recognise they had a good man and to give him the TIME to shape the club and make a massive cultural shift which is what is needed at our club.

The likes of Milner (who's not playing regularly) will play to the gallery to feed any anti-Mancini sentiment and that all serves to undermine the power the manager can wield.

Sadly our fans are not willing to afford any of our managers the time that is needed.

The three most successful clubs in recent years Liverpoo; (in their heyday), the rags and Arsenal have all had one thing and that is stability in management. We need to learn lessons from history.

Top post totally agree with you!

The difference between Mancini and Baconface! If you go of Mancini after 18 months in charge and Baconface after 18 months in charge! There's only 1 winner by a country mile! Mancini!

Baconface got time! Hope the people in charge give Mancini time!

Eh?

Do you actually know what you are talking about? Or are you just making it up as you go along?

After 18 months in charge at the swamp, baconface had achieved the runners-up spot in the league!

I'm all for defending your man, but at least go with the facts.

 

[NIghtSKy10]

The difference between mancini and fergunson is that Fergunson forces his team to play as an TEAM, no solo bullshit in the squad. Why do you think Chicharito has so many goals? They are all tap in goals which Giggs or Rooney simply pass him the ball in front of an open net. Now if Mancini forced Johnson to put in some crosses instead of always going solo, If he forced tevez to pass the ball more often to the open man which can score in front of an open net, if Balo wouldn't try the impossible shots from 40 meters, then we would begin to play like Man Utd...

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

One understands exactly what is required to succeed at the highest level in the English game,and the other is Mancini.

 

[lostgalaxy]

In the end Mancini may not be as successful, but he's more likeable.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

In the end Mancini may not be as successful, but he's more likeable.

There is no 'may' about it - Mancini will never be in the same ballpark.
And managing a successful team is not a personality contest.
I wouldn't care if Mancini came across like the world's worst ever Tourette's sufferer to the press after the game just so long as we had actually won it.

 

[lostgalaxy]

Of course he wants to win the FA cup. Even at the expense of an embarrassing league loss.

There's progress by momentum. There's also progress through deaths.

One just comes back from death. Stronger.

Someone said City evolves like a snake, just peeling its skins on the way.

Also Mancini has Khaldoon talks at his side. Not easy for a manager to be that generous.

 

[stonerblue]

It's pretty obvious that whisknose instills a great team and work ethic into his squad when his teams still get results when the top players are missing. I'd say stability has a hell of a lot to do with it. He has had plenty of time to get his club running just the way he likes it, and everyone knows who the boss is, even before they arrive at the club.
Bobby has had very little time to stamp his authority on City. He's not had that much time with the players either. At least not on the training ground. The last international break was probably the longest sustained period he had to work with the majority of the squad (didn't do us much good though in scouseland)