Burtonblue said:I am sure you are correct and would expect no less from our owners.Didsbury Dave said:rest assured, when the day comes Mancini is sacked, it will not have been a 'knee jerk' decision by the board, but a considered one. And his replacement will already be lined up.Burtonblue said:So you are psychic then! Obviously not a good one.
I am a firm believer that knee jerk reactions are not the way to longlasting success. It may work in the short terms but great club dynasties are built on stability. Don't just look at manpoo, there are many other examples.
Chopping and changing is just going to hinder progress as new managers will want to change players which in turn will mean having to rebuild.
Look at where we have got to in such a short period with our current manager. Changing now would be folly.
Of course, that's just my view mate..
I just get tired of all this call for change when we are not exactly having a mare.
Second in the league and not yet hit our stride is not all bad. I can think of the rags being in our position many times before and look what usually happens to them.
Stability and patience (well at least for the moment!)
MotownBlue said:First of all, Ducado and others, I would like to RESPECTFULLY and HONESTLY say that I do not think that this thread is necessarily a “Mancini in/Mancini out” thread. While I understand why you guys see a thread like this that way (and also understand the idea that we don’t want to clog the forum with repetitive threads), I also see what posters like City91 and de niro and Didsbury Dave and Blue Haze and others are bringing to the table in this thread. To be honest, these threads can be some of my favorites, when we take the time to peel back the onion and raise the debate above the “our recent run of form leads me to call for the sacking of Bobby” format. I think threads like these can be very, very interesting and thought provoking, IF the contributors keep the original poster’s premise in mind.
I feel like what City91 is driving at here is what I am trying to defend. As much as names are central to his very well thought out post, I feel strongly that he is steering the discussion in a higher (not better – higher), more philosophical direction. Does stability over years breed success? Does a lack of stability breed a lack of success? As with everything, I feel that there is not a solid, simple answer once you accept City91’s challenge to examine the larger issue.
If I hold Man United in front of you, I can use it to make a case for stability breeding the highest levels of success, can’t I? Fergie has an amazing track record of consistent, commendable success with United. I would like to point out an aspect of this issue that I think is crucial before I go any further…
When Fergie began his career at United (after a VERY successful career at Aberdeen), he took the helm of an average club. His first few years were not very good at ManUre. In my opinion, one of the major issues that kept him stable there was that this was before the era we all live in now – that of Sports Media Oversaturation. There were no global digital media outlets. No Sky. No Twitter. No Facebook. No forums. Today, we have all of these things and they have elevated sport to the very highest heights of visibility. Back then, criticism was meted out in living rooms and pubs over pints. “Experts” were you and I, the punters full of ale debating in their local. Today, the microscope of the media is much stronger. This in and of itself, I believe, leads to a greater tendency toward instability as the multitude of media outlets overhype everything that happens, from the winning and the losing to the bathroom fireworks and the hair plugs. Anyway, I think it is impossible to have this discussion without acknowledging the role that mass digital media plays in the increasing level of scrutiny in sports.
So, BaconFace takes over United in 1986. He has several poor seasons at the helm. Early in the 1989-90 season when a banner declaring "Three years of excuses and it's still crap...ta-ta Fergie” was hung at the Swamp, there was no digital media circus to latch onto it and drive the hysteria that losing brings to a boil. He kept plugging away, kept the support of his Board of Directors, and (we should point out) kept buying the players he needed to turn United around and – later – strengthen their ranks. That list included Neil Webb, Mike Phelan, Paul Ince, Gary Pallister, Danny Wallace, Peter Schmeichel, Paul Parker, Eric Cantona, Andy Cole and many others. So, United grew in success and stature through player development AND big money signings. Fergie was given time to grow both the team and the Brand that ManUre have become through their success. He was abysmal in Europe for YEARS, but was given the time to turn that around as well.
Score one for stability, yes?
But what about Arsenal? Wenger has been at the helm since 1996. His first eight years or so saw a great deal of success, but since then what has happened? Not much. Wenger himself, and the club as a whole, have chosen to embrace the “success through internal development” model of football management and it has not worked. My personal belief is that it does not work because football does not work that way anymore in the big money, post-globalization sports world. If the people at Arsenal do not believe that I am right, I will say to them: Patrick Vieira, Rémi Garde, Fredrik Ljungberg, Thierry Henry, Robert Pirès, Sol Campbell and Giovanni van Bronckhorst. These players, amongst others, were BROUGHT IN and not developed at the academy in north London. Today, Arsenal are jeered at for being a feeder club for others as they sell away their young, bright players as soon as the money needed to retain their services becomes too burdensome. It’s great for their bank account and horrible for their record.
Score one for stability meaning NOWT, yes?
OK, I could go on another rant now examining Chelsea and their record under Roman Abramovich, right? With Chelsea, we have stability of ownership, but we have perhaps an unstable owner who throws managers out like drunks in a pub while he throws his millions around. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Chelsea is more of a hybrid to me, in that sense, but Abramovich’s penchant for changing managers is maddening and his money means he will never have to stop operating that way.
I loved the comments about Everton. Moyes does a great job with the hand he is dealt, but there isn’t enough cash on that side of the Mersey to break him into the Top Four on a consistent basis. I view them as a PERFECT example of what happens when the stability many of us crave is not matched with a large enough bank account to compete within the reality of today’s sports world.
Anyway, what is my babbling really about? I suppose I believe that stability does breed success. One hand washes the other. There are enough examples of it to put stock in it. However, titles can be won and teams can excel using a more mercenary philosophy as well. The question for all of us, perhaps, is HOW DO WE WANT OUR SUCCESS at Manchester City? Do we want a Fergie who spends decades at the helm or do we want Roman’s orgy of hires and quick beheadings after losing to a few shit sides over a fortnight?
I truly think that both can work, but I would boil my personal philosophy into this:
Constant change in a chase for titles and European success can certainly fill a trophy case. However, stability and consistency can build a brand with a global footprint over the long haul. I’d prefer the latter, but I don’t begrudge any Blues that just want the enormous hangovers that come with the celebrations that winning leads to.
CTID
MotownBlue said:First of all, Ducado and others, I would like to RESPECTFULLY and HONESTLY say that I do not think that this thread is necessarily a “Mancini in/Mancini out” thread. While I understand why you guys see a thread like this that way (and also understand the idea that we don’t want to clog the forum with repetitive threads), I also see what posters like City91 and de niro and Didsbury Dave and Blue Haze and others are bringing to the table in this thread. To be honest, these threads can be some of my favorites, when we take the time to peel back the onion and raise the debate above the “our recent run of form leads me to call for the sacking of Bobby” format. I think threads like these can be very, very interesting and thought provoking, IF the contributors keep the original poster’s premise in mind.
I feel like what City91 is driving at here is what I am trying to defend. As much as names are central to his very well thought out post, I feel strongly that he is steering the discussion in a higher (not better – higher), more philosophical direction. Does stability over years breed success? Does a lack of stability breed a lack of success? As with everything, I feel that there is not a solid, simple answer once you accept City91’s challenge to examine the larger issue.
If I hold Man United in front of you, I can use it to make a case for stability breeding the highest levels of success, can’t I? Fergie has an amazing track record of consistent, commendable success with United. I would like to point out an aspect of this issue that I think is crucial before I go any further…
When Fergie began his career at United (after a VERY successful career at Aberdeen), he took the helm of an average club. His first few years were not very good at ManUre. In my opinion, one of the major issues that kept him stable there was that this was before the era we all live in now – that of Sports Media Oversaturation. There were no global digital media outlets. No Sky. No Twitter. No Facebook. No forums. Today, we have all of these things and they have elevated sport to the very highest heights of visibility. Back then, criticism was meted out in living rooms and pubs over pints. “Experts” were you and I, the punters full of ale debating in their local. Today, the microscope of the media is much stronger. This in and of itself, I believe, leads to a greater tendency toward instability as the multitude of media outlets overhype everything that happens, from the winning and the losing to the bathroom fireworks and the hair plugs. Anyway, I think it is impossible to have this discussion without acknowledging the role that mass digital media plays in the increasing level of scrutiny in sports.
So, BaconFace takes over United in 1986. He has several poor seasons at the helm. Early in the 1989-90 season when a banner declaring "Three years of excuses and it's still crap...ta-ta Fergie” was hung at the Swamp, there was no digital media circus to latch onto it and drive the hysteria that losing brings to a boil. He kept plugging away, kept the support of his Board of Directors, and (we should point out) kept buying the players he needed to turn United around and – later – strengthen their ranks. That list included Neil Webb, Mike Phelan, Paul Ince, Gary Pallister, Danny Wallace, Peter Schmeichel, Paul Parker, Eric Cantona, Andy Cole and many others. So, United grew in success and stature through player development AND big money signings. Fergie was given time to grow both the team and the Brand that ManUre have become through their success. He was abysmal in Europe for YEARS, but was given the time to turn that around as well.
Score one for stability, yes?
But what about Arsenal? Wenger has been at the helm since 1996. His first eight years or so saw a great deal of success, but since then what has happened? Not much. Wenger himself, and the club as a whole, have chosen to embrace the “success through internal development” model of football management and it has not worked. My personal belief is that it does not work because football does not work that way anymore in the big money, post-globalization sports world. If the people at Arsenal do not believe that I am right, I will say to them: Patrick Vieira, Rémi Garde, Fredrik Ljungberg, Thierry Henry, Robert Pirès, Sol Campbell and Giovanni van Bronckhorst. These players, amongst others, were BROUGHT IN and not developed at the academy in north London. Today, Arsenal are jeered at for being a feeder club for others as they sell away their young, bright players as soon as the money needed to retain their services becomes too burdensome. It’s great for their bank account and horrible for their record.
Score one for stability meaning NOWT, yes?
OK, I could go on another rant now examining Chelsea and their record under Roman Abramovich, right? With Chelsea, we have stability of ownership, but we have perhaps an unstable owner who throws managers out like drunks in a pub while he throws his millions around. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Chelsea is more of a hybrid to me, in that sense, but Abramovich’s penchant for changing managers is maddening and his money means he will never have to stop operating that way.
I loved the comments about Everton. Moyes does a great job with the hand he is dealt, but there isn’t enough cash on that side of the Mersey to break him into the Top Four on a consistent basis. I view them as a PERFECT example of what happens when the stability many of us crave is not matched with a large enough bank account to compete within the reality of today’s sports world.
Anyway, what is my babbling really about? I suppose I believe that stability does breed success. One hand washes the other. There are enough examples of it to put stock in it. However, titles can be won and teams can excel using a more mercenary philosophy as well. The question for all of us, perhaps, is HOW DO WE WANT OUR SUCCESS at Manchester City? Do we want a Fergie who spends decades at the helm or do we want Roman’s orgy of hires and quick beheadings after losing to a few shit sides over a fortnight?
I truly think that both can work, but I would boil my personal philosophy into this:
Constant change in a chase for titles and European success can certainly fill a trophy case. However, stability and consistency can build a brand with a global footprint over the long haul. I’d prefer the latter, but I don’t begrudge any Blues that just want the enormous hangovers that come with the celebrations that winning leads to.
CTID
Chelsea, Barca, Inter, United, Milan, Liverpool, Porto, Munich, Madrid, Dortmund.That is the most unfounded myth in football<br /><br />-- Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:57 am --<br /><br />Thenumber1blue said:If you think its boring now,wait until you get your wish with Mourinho.
The only team that uses what you class as stability is united and they have won it twice in 9 years, Barca, Madrid and Milan change there managers all the timeDamocles said:I'm not sure you've thought this through enough. Let's look at the last ten CL winners.
Code:Chelsea, Barca, Inter, United, Milan, Liverpool, Porto, Munich, Madrid, Dortmund.
Now look at the ones who have won it more than once on that list:
- Barca
United
Milan
Madrid
Leaving these who have had one time successes:
- Chelsea
Inter
Liverpool
Porto
Munich
Dortmund
What are the differences between these teams?
One group has a structure of stability built into them, the other group does not. Madrid and Munich are actully the outliers here and Madrid won theirs twice in three years whilst Munich have consistently fucked up the Final, but the point remains.
It isn't rocket science this. Success takes skill, sustained success takes stability. We are after sustained success.
I'm not sure if some people think everybody in football is stupid or something and this issue has been gone over again and again and again from all angles? The reason everybody in football barks on about stability is because it works.
Damocles said:I'm not sure you've thought this through enough. Let's look at the last ten CL winners.
Code:Chelsea, Barca, Inter, United, Milan, Liverpool, Porto, Munich, Madrid, Dortmund.
Now look at the ones who have won it more than once on that list:
- Barca
United
Milan
Madrid
Leaving these who have had one time successes:
- Chelsea
Inter
Liverpool
Porto
Munich
Dortmund
What are the differences between these teams?
One group has a structure of stability built into them, the other group does not. Madrid and Munich are actully the outliers here and Madrid won theirs twice in three years whilst Munich have consistently fucked up the Final, but the point remains.
It isn't rocket science this. Success takes skill, sustained success takes stability. We are after sustained success.
I'm not sure if some people think everybody in football is stupid or something and this issue has been gone over again and again and again from all angles? The reason everybody in football barks on about stability is because it works.
Damocles said:Apparently Barca promoting their reserve managers to first team managers isn't stability.
YCMIU.