moomba said:blueinsa said:moomba said:Common sense tells you that organised, defensive teams that scrap are harder to beat than those that sit back and let you play.
Its not just us, every team in the world can struggle against that approach if they are not on top form. Taking your chances is the best way to negate that approach and all too often we've failed to take our chances this season.
I'd also argue that on occasion our players have failed to match the commitment and effort shown by the likes of Everton for example.
RM has to take some responsibility for that of course but so too do the players that don't perform in there situations.
But we have proven many occasions that we can beat "high pressing teams". And beat them well.
Moomba you are right to criticise the players performances and some on show today were once again, way below whats acceptable but at what point do you start asking the question, why does he keep picking them?
Football is a results business and virtually every manager that has ever got the boot has done so because his players have not performed and have let him down.
Bob will be no different and i find it frustrating that so many seem hell bent on trying to reinvent how football works in the real world.
Bob is a football professional and knows full well how it works and what will happen should HIS team not bring home the bacon.
I have no problem with RM being judged on performances. To date I think we gave had three years of good progress results wise and a backward step this season.
As a general rule I think the club should be able to live with a backward step (season) without needing to make major changes. I doubt they will accept two backward steps and that's fair enough IMO.
Why does he keep picking players? Just as managers need chances to get things right so too do players. And the ones we are giving that chance have plenty of runs on the board for us.
Ultimately, just as it is with the manager, players that continually let us down will be replaced. And I'm sure there's more thannone or two of our title winning team are on thin ice.
Mancini has spent just over 300 million, we have probably spent around 500 million in total since the takeover. Net spend will obviously be lower.Gaylord du Bois said:Go on fella, hit him with the figures.moomba said:Master_Tactician said:You call it self-entitlement, I call it ambition. Mancini's £500m worth of transfer fees just about gives me that.
Which £500m?
Maybe you're right. If Inter had never changed Mourinho for Mancini they would have never won that horrible Champions League!Yaya_Tony said:"500million" gives you that much self entitlement (sorry, "ambition")? Money doesn't buy success or happiness, sorry to break it to you.Master_Tactician said:You call it self-entitlement, I call it ambition. Mancini's £500m worth of transfer fees just about gives me that.Yaya_Tony said:And where has this sense of entitlement come from Mr Master_Tactician? Mancini did get Inter out of the group stages iirc, to the QF I think, the rest of your post is nonsensical soundbites. Logic over hope? Logic dictates that a new manager will cause upheaval, at a stage when we are looking to capitalise on what we have already built. Logically, we shouldn't even be having this "debate".
Mourinho replacing him at Inter and winning the Champions League in his second season didn't make Mancini's QF achievement look too impressive.
The near total consensus on here is that a summer of upheaval is needed as we shift out the dead wood and bring in some fresh quality, to clarify you are going contrary to that and saying we need austere stability?
Mancini/Mourinho/Inter isn't something I can be arsed dissecting at the moment.
We've needed to shift deadwood ever since Hughes left us with overwaged and underskilled employees. Once the leeches are gone forever we can spend worthwhile money on wages, still not over the top which is why the Spaniards renegotiated Kompany and Silva's contracts for example. I'm certainly not advocating austerity. The near total consensus on here is that we don't need or want upheaval, but tweaks. Some say a managerial tweak, many say let the manger do the tweaking.
We're at the start of a long road, why should we introduce yet another variable into a game which is already full of variables, from one 90 mins to the next? Keep a steady ship, and I believe we will reach the promised land. If we change now we may still get there (no guarantees either way), but we will have much more to do. As things stand, we are well on course.
blueinsa said:moomba said:blueinsa said:Moomba you are right to criticise the players performances and some on show today were once again, way below whats acceptable but at what point do you start asking the question, why does he keep picking them?
Football is a results business and virtually every manager that has ever got the boot has done so because his players have not performed and have let him down.
Bob will be no different and i find it frustrating that so many seem hell bent on trying to reinvent how football works in the real world.
Bob is a football professional and knows full well how it works and what will happen should HIS team not bring home the bacon.
I have no problem with RM being judged on performances. To date I think we gave had three years of good progress results wise and a backward step this season.
As a general rule I think the club should be able to live with a backward step (season) without needing to make major changes. I doubt they will accept two backward steps and that's fair enough IMO.
I have no issue in finishing 2nd in the league or not winning a trophy for that matter as long as we have played to our potential for the majority of the season but this year we havnt and its a major worry to see a side that was spellbinding at times last season look so out of form on so many occasions this year.
If he stays and I think he will, he has to address the squad deficiencies this summer and he has to ask himself if he needs to change our style of play and inject much needed width and pace.
He does that and bingo, he doesn't and its curtains imo.
blueinsa said:moomba said:blueinsa said:Moomba you are right to criticise the players performances and some on show today were once again, way below whats acceptable but at what point do you start asking the question, why does he keep picking them?
Football is a results business and virtually every manager that has ever got the boot has done so because his players have not performed and have let him down.
Bob will be no different and i find it frustrating that so many seem hell bent on trying to reinvent how football works in the real world.
Bob is a football professional and knows full well how it works and what will happen should HIS team not bring home the bacon.
I have no problem with RM being judged on performances. To date I think we gave had three years of good progress results wise and a backward step this season.
As a general rule I think the club should be able to live with a backward step (season) without needing to make major changes. I doubt they will accept two backward steps and that's fair enough IMO.
I have no issue in finishing 2nd in the league or not winning a trophy for that matter as long as we have played to our potential for the majority of the season but this year we havnt and its a major worry to see a side that was spellbinding at times last season look so out of form on so many occasions this year.
If he stays and I think he will, he has to address the squad deficiencies this summer and he has to ask himself if he needs to change our style of play and inject much needed width and pace.
He does that and bingo, he doesn't and its curtains imo.
Master_Tactician said:Jupp Heynckes and Guus Hiddink are out of jobs in the summer, De Boer has said he wants to come here also. Ambitious attempts to hijack Chelsea and Real's respective deals for Mourinho and Ancelotti possible too.dctid said:I think Mancini future is in the balance
If i owned the club i would look at what Feguson did 2012 season with an injury riddled team and pushed Mancini right to the final day then look at what he did 2013 season with pretty much the same team RVP apart (Kagawa has hardly been a major contributir) and then factor into the equation the very rea possability of Mouriniho at Chelski and ask is Mancini likely to have sufficient nouse, team management and tactical nouse to beat Ferguson and Mouriniho
I think it likely that he wont but then the question is which other manager available is good enough to take on both and win
Personally i cant see any one else so stick with Mancini BUT Pellagrini's performance in the CL has got to make them interested
If we're doing Hypotheticals what happens if Mancini stays (which I think he will) he gets a 100 million to spend and we go once again in the group stages of the CL?Kazzydeyna said:Can I just ask the Colin Schindler's of this forum a genuine question please?
Let's hypothesize that we go all out and get Jose in the summer. And give him major money to spend.
If in two years time all he has achieved is a premier league title and an fa cup, after you've then sacked him for not being successful enough, who would you replace him with?
And where would the subsequent financial upheaval leave us in relation to ffp?
Net £180m if Moomba's figures are correct. Whichever way you look at it its a fuck sight different than 500m don't you think?greasedupdeafguy said:Mancini has spent just over 300 million, we have probably spent around 500 million in total since the takeover. Net spend will obviously be lower.Gaylord du Bois said:Go on fella, hit him with the figures.moomba said:Which £500m?
Gaylord du Bois said:Net £180m if Moomba's figures are correct. Whichever way you look at it its a fuck sight different than 500m don't you think?greasedupdeafguy said:Mancini has spent just over 300 million, we have probably spent around 500 million in total since the takeover. Net spend will obviously be lower.Gaylord du Bois said:Go on fella, hit him with the figures.