Why The Hell Would Anyone Want Mancini Sacked ?

[BobKowalski]

I don't think anybody believes Jose will be off to City any time soon, to be honest, mate.

He's topic of conversation at the moment because rather than looking at what he's achieved and how he's performed, instead of looking at it logically, some people are letting their hatred for him cloud their judgement.

I can fully understand why some dont like Mourinho at all, yet that doesn't mean it should cloud one's judgement on him.

In fairness its no different to people letting their dislike of Mancini cloud their judgement. As I said earlier on an objective basis Mancini's time at City has been more of a success than Mourinho's at Madrid simply because Mancini fulfilled the objectives set by City and Mourinho didn't meet those set by Real. The jobs and objectives were different and both were difficult for different reasons but Mourinho's time at Real is at best a qualified success.

Leaving the CL aside Real's failure this season to capitalise on Barca losing Pep and his replacement missing half the season is the biggest surprise. Or put it this way if Taggart had left last summer and we finished second to a Mike Phelan led ManU I'd be pissed with Mancini as well.

As you say, the objectives and challenges set by the Madrid & City boards respectively are different.

The circus that is the Real Mdrid board would pretty much expect any manager they hire to win the CL every year, never mind progress to the finals or semi finals. Whilst Barca will also have a board who will think along those lines, it's only Madrid's who will sack any manager who doesn't do such a thing. You only have to look at the number of manager they've sackeddespite winning the league that year.

I imagine the board at City would have expected progression from the group stages for the last two years, regardless of the opposition City were drawn with. What's certain is that unlike at Madrid, Mancini wouldn't have been expected to reach the final in every campaign.

Over the last 3 seasons both Mourinho and Mancini have won a league, a major domestic cup and a minor domestic cup. They are both on target to lift a 2nd domestic cup as well. The only difference between the two is that Mourinho has still reached 3 European semi finals and Mancini has failed to get our of the group stages at both attempts.

You can make reference to Mourinho failing to take advantage of Barca's managerial "problems", however, these problems have obviously not been that big because they have only dropped 10pts all season, 4 of which were against Real Madrid. So, Madrid aside, Barca have dropped 6 league points all season. That, to me, says that Barca's managerial "problems" haven't been that bad. They've had an incredible season.

IMO, when you look at how Mourinho and Mancini have done, i'd say it's pretty even. One person could say "The expectations at Madrid are higher" and the other can say "But they are unrealistically high expectations".

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

 

[NipHolmes]

In fairness its no different to people letting their dislike of Mancini cloud their judgement. As I said earlier on an objective basis Mancini's time at City has been more of a success than Mourinho's at Madrid simply because Mancini fulfilled the objectives set by City and Mourinho didn't meet those set by Real. The jobs and objectives were different and both were difficult for different reasons but Mourinho's time at Real is at best a qualified success.

Leaving the CL aside Real's failure this season to capitalise on Barca losing Pep and his replacement missing half the season is the biggest surprise. Or put it this way if Taggart had left last summer and we finished second to a Mike Phelan led ManU I'd be pissed with Mancini as well.

As you say, the objectives and challenges set by the Madrid & City boards respectively are different.

The circus that is the Real Mdrid board would pretty much expect any manager they hire to win the CL every year, never mind progress to the finals or semi finals. Whilst Barca will also have a board who will think along those lines, it's only Madrid's who will sack any manager who doesn't do such a thing. You only have to look at the number of manager they've sackeddespite winning the league that year.

I imagine the board at City would have expected progression from the group stages for the last two years, regardless of the opposition City were drawn with. What's certain is that unlike at Madrid, Mancini wouldn't have been expected to reach the final in every campaign.

Over the last 3 seasons both Mourinho and Mancini have won a league, a major domestic cup and a minor domestic cup. They are both on target to lift a 2nd domestic cup as well. The only difference between the two is that Mourinho has still reached 3 European semi finals and Mancini has failed to get our of the group stages at both attempts.

You can make reference to Mourinho failing to take advantage of Barca's managerial "problems", however, these problems have obviously not been that big because they have only dropped 10pts all season, 4 of which were against Real Madrid. So, Madrid aside, Barca have dropped 6 league points all season. That, to me, says that Barca's managerial "problems" haven't been that bad. They've had an incredible season.

IMO, when you look at how Mourinho and Mancini have done, i'd say it's pretty even. One person could say "The expectations at Madrid are higher" and the other can say "But they are unrealistically high expectations".

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

You make sense in your posts but I'd be willing to stake my bollocks that a target this season was to qualify out of the group or at least finish third. I'd say our early exit in the CC wasn't on target either.

 

[BobKowalski]

As you say, the objectives and challenges set by the Madrid & City boards respectively are different.

The circus that is the Real Mdrid board would pretty much expect any manager they hire to win the CL every year, never mind progress to the finals or semi finals. Whilst Barca will also have a board who will think along those lines, it's only Madrid's who will sack any manager who doesn't do such a thing. You only have to look at the number of manager they've sackeddespite winning the league that year.

I imagine the board at City would have expected progression from the group stages for the last two years, regardless of the opposition City were drawn with. What's certain is that unlike at Madrid, Mancini wouldn't have been expected to reach the final in every campaign.

Over the last 3 seasons both Mourinho and Mancini have won a league, a major domestic cup and a minor domestic cup. They are both on target to lift a 2nd domestic cup as well. The only difference between the two is that Mourinho has still reached 3 European semi finals and Mancini has failed to get our of the group stages at both attempts.

You can make reference to Mourinho failing to take advantage of Barca's managerial "problems", however, these problems have obviously not been that big because they have only dropped 10pts all season, 4 of which were against Real Madrid. So, Madrid aside, Barca have dropped 6 league points all season. That, to me, says that Barca's managerial "problems" haven't been that bad. They've had an incredible season.

IMO, when you look at how Mourinho and Mancini have done, i'd say it's pretty even. One person could say "The expectations at Madrid are higher" and the other can say "But they are unrealistically high expectations".

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

You make sense in your posts but I'd be willing to stake my bollocks that a target this season was to qualify out of the group or at least finish third. I'd say our early exit in the CC wasn't on target either.

I imagine our targets are to do as well as we can in all competitions and early exits will be viewed as failures this season as well as in the previous two seasons under Roberto. This does not alter the fact that the key objectives set out by City when Mancini was appointed have been met. Cementing our position in the so called 'Top 4' and qualification for the CL every season; winning silverware and challenging/winning the PL title. These objectives have been met. Future objectives will include progress in the CL and Mancini will be judged on that front in addition to domestic competitiveness as will any future manager.

 

[hgblue]

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

You make sense in your posts but I'd be willing to stake my bollocks that a target this season was to qualify out of the group or at least finish third. I'd say our early exit in the CC wasn't on target either.

I imagine our targets are to do as well as we can in all competitions and early exits will be viewed as failures this season as well as in the previous two seasons under Roberto. This does not alter the fact that the key objectives set out by City when Mancini was appointed have been met. Cementing our position in the so called 'Top 4' and qualification for the CL every season; winning silverware and challenging/winning the PL title. These objectives have been met. Future objectives will include progress in the CL and Mancini will be judged on that front in addition to domestic competitiveness as will any future manager.

Mancini's target for this season was to fail to win a game in the Champs League and be out of the title race by February? As Yosser Hughes used to say 'gissa job, I could do that'.

 

[dancity19]

As you say, the objectives and challenges set by the Madrid & City boards respectively are different.

The circus that is the Real Mdrid board would pretty much expect any manager they hire to win the CL every year, never mind progress to the finals or semi finals. Whilst Barca will also have a board who will think along those lines, it's only Madrid's who will sack any manager who doesn't do such a thing. You only have to look at the number of manager they've sackeddespite winning the league that year.

I imagine the board at City would have expected progression from the group stages for the last two years, regardless of the opposition City were drawn with. What's certain is that unlike at Madrid, Mancini wouldn't have been expected to reach the final in every campaign.

Over the last 3 seasons both Mourinho and Mancini have won a league, a major domestic cup and a minor domestic cup. They are both on target to lift a 2nd domestic cup as well. The only difference between the two is that Mourinho has still reached 3 European semi finals and Mancini has failed to get our of the group stages at both attempts.

You can make reference to Mourinho failing to take advantage of Barca's managerial "problems", however, these problems have obviously not been that big because they have only dropped 10pts all season, 4 of which were against Real Madrid. So, Madrid aside, Barca have dropped 6 league points all season. That, to me, says that Barca's managerial "problems" haven't been that bad. They've had an incredible season.

IMO, when you look at how Mourinho and Mancini have done, i'd say it's pretty even. One person could say "The expectations at Madrid are higher" and the other can say "But they are unrealistically high expectations".

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

You make sense in your posts but I'd be willing to stake my bollocks that a target this season was to qualify out of the group or at least finish third. I'd say our early exit in the CC wasn't on target either.

Absolutely.

It's all very easy to say Mancini has achieved ahead of schedule, but targets or 'briefs' change and develop over time depending on circumstance and competition etc.

I don't think anyone has every said Mancini's tenure has been a failure. He has done well, we can't deny that.

BUT, this season has been poor, from almost all aspects. The brief will have been to improve/consolidate on last year. The fact is we have regressed in 3 out of 4 competitions (we were a joke in Europe), and our style of play has actually worsened as well. We played some phenomenal stuff last year- you can count in single figures the amount of times we have been phenomenal this season.

Finishing second is fine, of course you can't win the league every year- but it is the lack of a real challenge that has irritated people.

You could say Mancini's hands were tied this year with the poor signings, and the injuries (though the whole debacle with the club doctor being sacked so Mancini could apparently get his guy in is pathetic if true).

It has been the inability to get consistently peak performances from the players this year. We have scraped through game after game, and only really turned up for some bigger games. Further, our concentration/ 'letting our heads drop' has been poor this year- never under Mancini have we lost by a margin of more than one goal before this season (in the league)- this season it has happened 3 times. It really isn't a major point, don't think I'm basing an argument around losing a couple of games by a bigger margin, as it can happen to the best of teams, but I would argue it is indicative of a poorer season, and more things going wrong.

Mancini has had, overall, a successful 3+ seasons with us- IF he is here next year, he needs to get the most out of the players more often than he has managed this season.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Mancini's target for this season was to fail to win a game in the Champs League and be out of the title race by February?

No - he had to piss off at least 5 first teamers as well.

 

[Latics Fan SJK]

In fairness its no different to people letting their dislike of Mancini cloud their judgement. As I said earlier on an objective basis Mancini's time at City has been more of a success than Mourinho's at Madrid simply because Mancini fulfilled the objectives set by City and Mourinho didn't meet those set by Real. The jobs and objectives were different and both were difficult for different reasons but Mourinho's time at Real is at best a qualified success.

Leaving the CL aside Real's failure this season to capitalise on Barca losing Pep and his replacement missing half the season is the biggest surprise. Or put it this way if Taggart had left last summer and we finished second to a Mike Phelan led ManU I'd be pissed with Mancini as well.

As you say, the objectives and challenges set by the Madrid & City boards respectively are different.

The circus that is the Real Mdrid board would pretty much expect any manager they hire to win the CL every year, never mind progress to the finals or semi finals. Whilst Barca will also have a board who will think along those lines, it's only Madrid's who will sack any manager who doesn't do such a thing. You only have to look at the number of manager they've sackeddespite winning the league that year.

I imagine the board at City would have expected progression from the group stages for the last two years, regardless of the opposition City were drawn with. What's certain is that unlike at Madrid, Mancini wouldn't have been expected to reach the final in every campaign.

Over the last 3 seasons both Mourinho and Mancini have won a league, a major domestic cup and a minor domestic cup. They are both on target to lift a 2nd domestic cup as well. The only difference between the two is that Mourinho has still reached 3 European semi finals and Mancini has failed to get our of the group stages at both attempts.

You can make reference to Mourinho failing to take advantage of Barca's managerial "problems", however, these problems have obviously not been that big because they have only dropped 10pts all season, 4 of which were against Real Madrid. So, Madrid aside, Barca have dropped 6 league points all season. That, to me, says that Barca's managerial "problems" haven't been that bad. They've had an incredible season.

IMO, when you look at how Mourinho and Mancini have done, i'd say it's pretty even. One person could say "The expectations at Madrid are higher" and the other can say "But they are unrealistically high expectations".

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

You keep referring to these problems that Barca have had and how Mourinho should have exploited them. I would agree with you had these apparent problems actually affected their league form in question. I'll repeat, they have only dropped 10pts all season. With Madrid taking 4 of those, they have only dropped 6pts all season.

6 points! It wouldn't matter whether Madrid had 3 Ronaldo's in their team. Trying to win the league when your rival has picked up 6pts short of the maximum possible all season (not including the fact Madrid have taken 4 off them) would be hard in anyone's book.

I agree that Madrid, after their performance last season, should be closer than the 11pts gap suggests, however, a lot of that is down to just how good Barcelona have been this season, irrelevant of these recent CL indifferent performances.

 

[NipHolmes]

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

You make sense in your posts but I'd be willing to stake my bollocks that a target this season was to qualify out of the group or at least finish third. I'd say our early exit in the CC wasn't on target either.

I imagine our targets are to do as well as we can in all competitions and early exits will be viewed as failures this season as well as in the previous two seasons under Roberto. This does not alter the fact that the key objectives set out by City when Mancini was appointed have been met. Cementing our position in the so called 'Top 4' and qualification for the CL every season; winning silverware and challenging/winning the PL title. These objectives have been met. Future objectives will include progress in the CL and Mancini will be judged on that front in addition to domestic competitiveness as will any future manager.

Key objective I agree but each season managers are set targets. Some clubs it's consolidation and a cup run (wigan), some top 4 qualification (liverpool and spurs) and I'd wage that City was aim for title, qualify from CL group, get to late stages of domestic cups.

We failed in Europe, failed in CC, did well/won in FA Cup and finished second in league. He's failed on 2 of the 4 and only a meltdown from manager and team would have seen us fall out of the top 4.

That's not a knocking of Mancini but it's misguided imo to say he's met this years objectives, by a margin imho. We were abysmal in Europe, we lost to Villa in CC. There are no excuses for either. The league we drew too much and set up too defensively meaning we didn'ty create and score enough goals which is always a must when competing for the league.

Real Madrid sack Capello when he won the league. Sacked Del Bosque when he won CL iirc. Sacked Pellegrini for finishing on 96 points!

A club that's in a final of domestic cup is sacking their manager (remember most on here view the FA Cup final as a reason to keep Mancini) and they've finished in last 4 of Europe and second in the league (probably). Now tell me that's a bad season. Fucking hell, what were/are the targets at Real Madrd for Jose to succeed? A double or treble? Remember the adage of the inners 'you can't win every year'.

Double standards at it's finest imho.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Mancini's target for this season was to fail to win a game in the Champs League and be out of the title race by February?

No - he had to piss off at least 5 first teamers as well.

Get use to him being here another year
Am sure that will cheer you up.

 

[BobKowalski]

As you say, the objectives and challenges set by the Madrid & City boards respectively are different.

The circus that is the Real Mdrid board would pretty much expect any manager they hire to win the CL every year, never mind progress to the finals or semi finals. Whilst Barca will also have a board who will think along those lines, it's only Madrid's who will sack any manager who doesn't do such a thing. You only have to look at the number of manager they've sackeddespite winning the league that year.

I imagine the board at City would have expected progression from the group stages for the last two years, regardless of the opposition City were drawn with. What's certain is that unlike at Madrid, Mancini wouldn't have been expected to reach the final in every campaign.

Over the last 3 seasons both Mourinho and Mancini have won a league, a major domestic cup and a minor domestic cup. They are both on target to lift a 2nd domestic cup as well. The only difference between the two is that Mourinho has still reached 3 European semi finals and Mancini has failed to get our of the group stages at both attempts.

You can make reference to Mourinho failing to take advantage of Barca's managerial "problems", however, these problems have obviously not been that big because they have only dropped 10pts all season, 4 of which were against Real Madrid. So, Madrid aside, Barca have dropped 6 league points all season. That, to me, says that Barca's managerial "problems" haven't been that bad. They've had an incredible season.

IMO, when you look at how Mourinho and Mancini have done, i'd say it's pretty even. One person could say "The expectations at Madrid are higher" and the other can say "But they are unrealistically high expectations".

Not really. All you are doing is providing excuses (or 'context') as to why Mourinho has not achieved his objectives at Real. For example stating that 'Barca's managerial problems have not been that bad' is clearly a nonsense. To lose the principal architect of this Barca team in the summer and to have his replacement hospitalised for half the season leaving the team without a leader is clearly 'bad' by anyone's definition. That the team has overcome this handicap does the club credit but over the last month or so it is taking its toll on the team.

The point remains that coming off the back of a league win, your main rival in a state of transition at the top and continuity in your own management team are ideal conditions to press home the advantage which Real failed to do largely because of the discord between Mourinho and the players.

That Mancini has succeeded in meeting the objectives set out by City and Mourinho has not is a matter of fact. This does not make Mourinho a bad manager or Mancini a better one it just is what it is.

You keep referring to these problems that Barca have had and how Mourinho should have exploited them. I would agree with you had these apparent problems actually affected their league form in question. I'll repeat, they have only dropped 10pts all season. With Madrid taking 4 of those, they have only dropped 6pts all season.

6 points! It wouldn't matter whether Madrid had 3 Ronaldo's in their team. Trying to win the league when your rival has picked up 6pts short of the maximum possible all season (not including the fact Madrid have taken 4 off them) would be hard in anyone's book.

I agree that Madrid, after their performance last season, should be closer than the 11pts gap suggests, however, a lot of that is down to just how good Barcelona have been this season, irrelevant of these recent CL indifferent performances.

Not quite. Real started the season badly. If they had started well and put pressure on Barca and kept the pressure on Barca then cracks may have appeared earlier and contributed to loss of form and a proper title race. As it was Barca had a pretty easy ride and its only recently that the cracks have shown. Hell Real were trailing in third for a large part of the season. It was a poor showing by any measurement and you cannot exempt Mourinho from his part in this. The fall out with the players is the root of Real's failure which led to Barca getting an easy ride in the league until it was too late.