Why The Hell Would Anyone Want Mancini Sacked ?

[Anonymous]

To put it all on one person is bollocks IMO, it was a collective failure.

It's not bollocks, it's why managers are employed. To be responsible for the collective.

So you're saying that the players shouldn't shoulder any responsibility for our failures in Europe.

Like I said, bollocks.

That's not what I said. If you think that's what I said, or you gleaned that from my post, I'd suggest your not reading it properly or choosing to spin it in such a way as to be able to repeat your nonsense "Like I said, bollocks".

The manager of a team is responsible for the collective underperformance of said team. Anyone who argues different doesn't understand a manager's function within a team sport.

 

[dancity19]

It's not bollocks, it's why managers are employed. To be responsible for the collective.

So you're saying that the players shouldn't shoulder any responsibility for our failures in Europe.

Like I said, bollocks.

That's not what I said. If you think that's what I said, or you gleaned that from my post, I'd suggest your not reading it properly or choosing to spin it in such a way as to be able to repeat your nonsense "Like I said, bollocks".

The manager of a team is responsible for the collective underperformance of said team. Anyone who argues different doesn't understand a manager's function within a team sport.

I don't understand people who think like this. Yes, it was a collective failure, and when a player performs poorly he must shoulder some blame. But the person ultimately responsible for the success/failure of a team is the manager. That is his job. View it like a hierarchy, and in terms of staff directly linked to the football, he is the one that shoulders the blame.

If a company isn't making the profit it should be making, there might be a lot of under performing staff who will be judged, but ultimately the person who will be blamed is the CEO, for their leadership, or lack of, and it is him who will get the boot from the shareholders. Exactly the same principle in football.

 

[moomba]

That's not what I said. If you think that's what I said, or you gleaned that from my post, I'd suggest your not reading it properly or choosing to spin it in such a way as to be able to repeat your nonsense "Like I said, bollocks".

The manager of a team is responsible for the collective underperformance of said team. Anyone who argues different doesn't understand a manager's function within a team sport.

I responded to a post that said that our failure in Europe was solely down to Mancini's tactics.

I said bollocks and you've disagreed. Maybe you could take your own advice and read the posts properly.

-- Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:10 pm --

I don't understand people who think like this. Yes, it was a collective failure, and when a player performs poorly he must shoulder some blame. But the person ultimately responsible for the success/failure of a team is the manager. That is his job. View it like a hierarchy, and in terms of staff directly linked to the football, he is the one that shoulders the blame.

If a company isn't making the profit it should be making, there might be a lot of under performing staff who will be judged, but ultimately the person who will be blamed is the CEO, for their leadership, or lack of, and it is him who will get the boot from the shareholders. Exactly the same principle in football.

Managers always will be held responsible for the failures of the collective, it's only fair that they also get credit for collective success.

But 16 games into the season isn't the time to start making definitive judgements over failure and success, and as mentioned above my post was in response to another saying that our failures in Europe were solely down to Mancini's tactics.

To me that's ignoring the roles played by our players in the failure. But I'm getting the feeling that some are happy to do that if it focuses attention on the managers role.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We're not quite half way through the season yet and we have already had some excellent performances.

We're roughly on a par with matching our results from last season (maybe 2 points behind), if we can maintain that par we'll win the league again.

No need to rush into judgement, we all expect improvement over the course fo the season and if that doesn't happen their will be consequences I'm sure.

Mate, you need to take the blue glasses off.

1. If as you rightly state we are 2 points off where we were last year, then maintain that rate and CLEARLY we won't win the league again.

2. After 16 games, how many excellent performances have we had? One? Two? I would say we have had some dire performances and some OK performances, but hardly any excellent performances. If any.

3. We all expected improvement from the end of last season. Now we are expecting it over the course of this season? Teams often have a dip in form around now and we are soon to lose Yaya to the ACN.

Of course we all hope we will suddenly snap into gear. But hope is not a strategy.

 

[Anonymous]

But I'm getting the feeling that some are happy to do that if it focuses attention on the managers role.

And there we have it.

 

[moomba]

Mate, you need to take the blue glasses off.

I'm not wearing any.

1. If as you rightly state we are 2 points off where we were last year, then maintain that rate and CLEARLY we won't win the league again.

89 points will win us the league IMO.

2. After 16 games, how many excellent performances have we had? One? Two? I would say we have had some dire performances and some OK performances, but hardly any excellent performances. If any.

Disagree

3. We all expected improvement from the end of last season. Now we are expecting it over the course of this season? Teams often have a dip in form around now and we are soon to lose Yaya to the ACN.

Of course we all hope we will suddenly snap into gear. But hope is not a strategy.

We're supporters, we don't need a strategy.

 

[warringtonblue]

We're not quite half way through the season yet and we have already had some excellent performances.

We're roughly on a par with matching our results from last season (maybe 2 points behind), if we can maintain that par we'll win the league again.

No need to rush into judgement, we all expect improvement over the course fo the season and if that doesn't happen their will be consequences I'm sure.

The problem here is that none of the players we've recruited are improvements on what we have lost, whereas other teams (meaning our main rivals) have improved and this will show itself over the course of the season. Keeping the core of last seasons starting 11 together and playing the best 11 regular is the only way to improve other than recruiting better players.

On another note, get well soon NDJ

 

[scotty123]

Adrian Durham on talkshite now, Mancini must go now hes undoing all the good work he did last year

Do you think otherwise?

Yes, we cannot keep on changing managers every two years, but i was pissed off with his starting eleven yesterday

-- Mon Dec 10, 2012 4:16 pm --

Adrian Durham on talkshite now, Mancini must go now hes undoing all the good work he did last year

Gough thinks every City player is on £250k a week. Clicky off.

Im gonna listen to this to hear if Gough really is as thick as iv been told he is

Blues split half and half phoning up, some people have short memories

 

[dancity19]

That's not what I said. If you think that's what I said, or you gleaned that from my post, I'd suggest your not reading it properly or choosing to spin it in such a way as to be able to repeat your nonsense "Like I said, bollocks".

The manager of a team is responsible for the collective underperformance of said team. Anyone who argues different doesn't understand a manager's function within a team sport.

I responded to a post that said that our failure in Europe was solely down to Mancini's tactics.

I said bollocks and you've disagreed. Maybe you could take your own advice and read the posts properly.

-- Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:10 pm --

I don't understand people who think like this. Yes, it was a collective failure, and when a player performs poorly he must shoulder some blame. But the person ultimately responsible for the success/failure of a team is the manager. That is his job. View it like a hierarchy, and in terms of staff directly linked to the football, he is the one that shoulders the blame.

If a company isn't making the profit it should be making, there might be a lot of under performing staff who will be judged, but ultimately the person who will be blamed is the CEO, for their leadership, or lack of, and it is him who will get the boot from the shareholders. Exactly the same principle in football.

Managers always will be held responsible for the failures of the collective, it's only fair that they also get credit for collective success.

But 16 games into the season isn't the time to start making definitive judgements over failure and success, and as mentioned above my post was in response to another saying that our failures in Europe were solely down to Mancini's tactics.

To me that's ignoring the roles played by our players in the failure. But I'm getting the feeling that some are happy to do that if it focuses attention on the managers role.

Yep, as I said, the person ultimately responsible the successes/failures of a team is the manager.

I never made a definitive judgement, did I? I commented on what we have seen so far this season, and compared it to an extent with where we were last season. What we are seeing this season is below par performances for the most part, and the last couple of weeks have seen us drop points, too.

If you think we are performing well/ where we should be then there is no point in this going further because we disagree on an absolute fundamental.

 

[Rammy Blue]

I wish I had a pair of moomba's blue tinted glasses.