Yes, Pelligrini is a much better manager imo.
City and Mancini
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
- Status
Well, SAF is available.
Pellegrini is a great coach. I would be worry if he becomes shitty manager.
This.
The worst thing that could happen is if they sack him and hire a tactically sound manager.
yesPlayers like Nasri, Sinclair and Garcia?
Mancini insists he will be around for next season
Based on what? He'd be a typical flavour of the month appointment. He's done well at Malaga against the odds - but his last "big job" at Real Madrid was a disaster - over £200 million spent and won nothing.
Mancini has done a lot for City - broke the duck of winning the league. For City this is a huge call and is representative of what they're now likely to become - a revolving door club just like Chelsea where if you dont win the league you get fired.
Its indicative of a new breed of owner who seem to be able to be convinced by representatives of players and managers that they're the answer to all their problems when that's very rarely the case.
I wasn't over enamoured witrh the appointment of Moyes if I'm honest - but at least we'll have stability and wont become a laughing stock.
https://www.redcafe.net/f7/would-city-make-step-up-370676/
You should read this thread. I cant be arsed to type out all the shit I did.
Martin Samuel article on this is well worth a read this morning. All Pellegrini's Spanish success it seems has been handed to him, similar to Mancini at City which people are slating him about and whilst I say "Success" he actually won nothing, so it's probably the wrong phrase to use.
Villarreal and Malaga were bankrolled by rich people, 1 has been relegated and the other can't enter European competition, at Madrid he spent a shitload and still didn't win anything albeit on a record runners up total it still wasn't a win. I agree with RedRover, it just reeks of being a flavour of the month thing and it's ridiculous.
If it was a Mourinho, Guardiola etc being available you could kind of excuse the sacking but it's not and it just seems a bit odd. I don't buy in to the fact that Mancini is a worse manager than Pellegrini. Look at their recent successes and the trophies they won does not lie, I know he's "never done it in Europe" and all that but Pellegrini failed with Madrid in Europe to so it's hardly the best replacement.
What City need is stability and they won't get that from sacking managers after 1 season. It's arrogance that they should not be afforded, the same happened with Chelsea and after years of instability they are going back to Mourinho and what they know and who they know brought them success, it seems as if anything they've admitted defeat and that they were wrong if City do the same as Chelsea it could be a disaster for them. I'd give Mancini another season and if it's the same again then look at changing it, lets be honest there will be other managers available next year as good as Pellegrini so it can wait.
Mancini is still a young manager and will make mistakes, I'm sure if he was sat down and explained stuff to he'd probably get that, the way City have handled this is disgraceful, they have literally left him to fight his own corner, the PR team at that club is shocking and if anyones jobs are under threat it should be there's. It's not hard to prepare a statement, especially on the day of a Cup Final, it clearly would get to the players and managr.
I can understand the dislike for Mancini as he does come across as a twat sometimes but I'd imagine it's the same as Fergie is with our rival fans, it's their passion and desire to win that makes them do this stuff. The "was goal" stuff, whilst funny, is purely his frustration coming out and the fact he doesn't speak brilliant English. From the City fans I know and have spoke to they will be gutted if he goes and I can see why, he did bring them success and 1 season shouldn't ruin all that.
If Pellegrini is flavour of the month, than it's the fault of people who have only been looking for a month. He was only on Real for one season, a team that has undergone a big change and faced a great Barcelona side. Hardly a disgrace they've won 'nothing' (I.e.: didn't win one of a grand total of two major trophies available).
He's a very good coach. Obviously he's not a guaranteed, who is, but the change is right. Mancini has taken City as far as he can.
He's a very good coach. Obviously he's not a guaranteed, who is, but the change is right. Mancini has taken City as far as he can.
I think they should have given Mancini more time. He won them their first trophy for 34 year, then backed it up by winning the league last year and I don't think one bad season should result in the sack. Not a great manager by an stretch but doesn't deserve the sack imo
I'm aware of his past, I even mentioned it in my post my point is more that since the Malaga stuff it's heavily linked. I doubt City are getting him on the basis of Madrid. Especially if they want to improve in the CL (he lost in the last 16 to Lyon, hardly brilliant.) You seem to edit the history a bit of him as well, there isn't just 2 trophies available. There's a league, a CL and a cup, he got embarrassed in the cup by some lower league team. If Madrid win at the weekend then Mourinho will leave with a trophy.
For all the Barca team was brilliant Madrid spent £200million that summer, they signed Kaka, Ronaldo and Xabi Alonso at their peak so it was a bit disappointing to win nothing, and on the cup competitions they didn't even compete really which isn't acceptable. You can't help the league stuff, 96 points and runners up is unlucky like I said but the cups can be improved on. For £200million you'd want at least a fight. Remember people are mainly slating Mancini and City for the money spent/performance return it seems so what's different? At least Mancini got City to the final.
Maybe you're right and he's not a "flavour of the month" kind of manager but I really don't see him as 1 where you'd have to make the change. If Mourinho became available you could excuse the sacking as it's a huge manager coming in, that doesn't seem the case at all here. For all the 96 league point stuff you can't hide the fact Mancini brings trophies to teams which is seemingly getting overlooked here.
I don't buy the taken them as far as he can stuff either, maybe it's just an opinion but he could take them so much further, he's been there 4 seasons or something, there's still much more he can do. He has his faults, the Tevez stuff always stands out for me, I think he should of got rid and stuck to his guns on that one but then he could argue without Tevez they wouldn't of won a league in the end.
Real won 96 points in 2010. It's terrific. It wasn't quite enough, but it's still excellent. Yeah, it didn't go well in the CL or in the cup (even though that's 3rd priority and a very low one, much more than the FA Cup). But that's ONE year, with a team that has undergone a big change. I mean, this is a Manchester United forum, we've just had one manager for 26.5 years. We know that sometimes it takes more than a year to form a winning team, even if it's got superb players.
Pellegrini wasn't a huge success at Real, but he wasn't a flop or anything. Three years of the same thing, yeah, that would have been a massive failure, but one year? no. And he did very well with Villareal and Malaga. He's got a lot going for him. For my money, more than Mancini had three years ago.
Pellegrini wasn't a huge success at Real, but he wasn't a flop or anything. Three years of the same thing, yeah, that would have been a massive failure, but one year? no. And he did very well with Villareal and Malaga. He's got a lot going for him. For my money, more than Mancini had three years ago.
When you make wholesale changes you can't expect to win overnight and expect everything to bed in quickly. After all that money he spent, Mourinho came in and spent over £50mill more the summer and still couldn't topple Barca. You could argue had it not been for Barca's blip in Pep's final season Mourinho wouldn't of even won a title.
I understand your point about him being the "flavour of the month" and you're probably right, but I just want to say I've admired him as a manager for a while, not for a couple of weeks. I don't really know why to be honest, I just see him as someone quite dignified, able to manage a team of stars and play pretty good football.
I say he's better than Mancini cos I don't really rate the Italian. He did well to win the league last year, of course, no one can deny him that, but I'm quite underwhelmed at what he's done with the squad he has, and with his European record. But it's his overall attitude and general demeanour that would annoy me if I was a City fan, his constant moaning and excuse finding and little pops at his board. He comes accross as someone very sour and I think Pelligrini would bring to that club a more dignified approach and more class, which Mancini lacks. Which may seem silly, but with their 'project' it's pretty important as the PR is an important aspect of the job.
I say he's better than Mancini cos I don't really rate the Italian. He did well to win the league last year, of course, no one can deny him that, but I'm quite underwhelmed at what he's done with the squad he has, and with his European record. But it's his overall attitude and general demeanour that would annoy me if I was a City fan, his constant moaning and excuse finding and little pops at his board. He comes accross as someone very sour and I think Pelligrini would bring to that club a more dignified approach and more class, which Mancini lacks. Which may seem silly, but with their 'project' it's pretty important as the PR is an important aspect of the job.
Don't get me wrong I'm not doubting the 96 points stuff mate, it's a very good points total to get and you're hugely unlucky to not win a title on the back of it, there's no argument to have against that. I stand by my points about the cups though, especially in your first season you should go for it, if you go out to a top team then fair enough but they got shown up by a second division side, if City were to lose to Blackpool in the cup I bet people would have a field day about it.
Your point about 1 year is absolutely spot on but surely Mancini deserves that treatment to? He had 1 "bad" year (a cup final and second in the league isn't all that bad though) but then he had 2 very good years as well. The whole knee jerk reaction by City is a bit disappointing I find and is a dangerous path to take. The fans are already against Pellegrini and he's not even confirmed yet, what happens if they have the exact same season next year, or finish 2nd and lose in the CL and knocked out the cup in the 5th round. Mancini was sacked for doing a better job so why not Pellegrini? It creates such a level on uncertainty that it becomes hard to manage and you'll forever be looking for the right man.
The main thing I'd argue Mancini had over most similar level managers (and I'd include Pellegrini in that) is his age, he's a younger manager who will probably be more likely to adapt or listen to ideas and experience. Pellegrini has been around for years so may be more stuck in his ways, whilst them ways may work in some places they don't everywhere. Wenger is an example, people will argue his stubborn nature is what costs Arsenal at times but then he was hugely successful for a period of time.
The biggest problem I have with it all is how Mancini has been treated by City. It's good to see as a United fan as it shows cracks are there and that essentially they are another Chelsea but even on the slim chance he is staying he has had to handle this all by himself for days now and that is disgraceful. The club should nip it in the bud not leave him to have to deal with stuff like this.
Spot on.
I agree Manicini probably isnt a top manager in the mould of Fergie, Guardiola or Mourinho, but he's achieved a lot at City in a short period of time. The fact is he's won more trophies than Pellegrini if you want to talk about records.
Another manager comes in and generally wants to rebuild, so more money will be spent, some good players will leave and they effectively start again. Its a huge ask for a new manager to win the league the first seaon he'sd in charge - especially with squad changes.
This reeks of owners not knowing what time of day it is. Stability is the key to success over the long term - they should take a long look at Chelsea and a long look at United. I know which one I'd rather follow.
City will end up in a position where top managers give them the swerve if they keep on like this. It takes time to develop a side, and a few setbacks here and there to build character. Fergie won nothing last year - and was afforded the time, and a few quid to do what he's done this season.
I agree with that. I dont want to see City do well if I'm honest but I liked Mancini and he's been treated like garbage. The club should be ashamed of themselves.
Mancini has made howlers that have cost City the chance to really challenge this year. Getting rid of De Jong, on the face of it, seems a big mistake. His buys have gotten progressively worse and his tactics have been Rafa-type baffling at times (Tevez for Rodwell in the cup final left some City fans puzzled). I appreciate that shoving Yaya further forward has worked in the past, but he didn't look particularly arsed during the game, and you're ultimately judged on the times that move fails rather than its successes.
I think the owners will look at Chelsea and see that chopping and changing CAN still bring success. Their silence so far is deafening
I think the owners will look at Chelsea and see that chopping and changing CAN still bring success. Their silence so far is deafening
Mancini made some mistakes on Saturday and has done this season - but its not surprising the players didnt perform given the matters going on behind the scenes with regard to the managers future.Mancini has made howlers that have cost City the chance to really challenge this year. Getting rid of De Jong, on the face of it, seems a big mistake. His buys have gotten progressively worse and his tactics have been Rafa-type baffling at times (Tevez for Rodwell in the cup final left some City fans puzzled). I appreciate that shoving Yaya further forward has worked in the past, but he didn't look particularly arsed during the game, and you're ultimately judged on the times that move fails rather than its successes.
I think the owners will look at Chelsea and see that chopping and changing CAN still bring success. Their silence so far is deafening
Chelsea's Champions League win has papered over an awful lot of cracks. AVB wasn't given any time, Di Matteo couldnt be sacked after winning the CL and Benitez was always a short term appointment.
With the possible exception of Ancellotti its been lurching from one crisis to the next since Mourinho left with the odd trophy here and there. The fact is, despite what success they'ver had they're depserate to go back to Mourinho now.
If they were repalcing Mancini with a really top manager in the mould of Guardiola or Mourinho I could understand it - but this could be a very costly gamble.
I don't have too much sympathy for Mancini at all in this instance. He's a hypocrite if he feels he's been harshly treated; he wasn't very sympathetic towards Mark Hughes when he agreed to be City's new manager when Hughes was still in the job. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Yup.
I also think that what pissed his players off far more than the speculation about him in the press was him putting brave joe in the net for the final and not the pantyliner guy.
There was an interview midweek where someone - kompany I think but could be mistaken - said that pants was the most deserving player in the squad to get a game at wembley.
Its not even like brave joe has been a step above this year, hes been auditioning for the lead in the film of calamity james' life by the look of him
City haven't handled it well, but as it's been pointed out, it was the same with Hughes. But aside from that, I don't think it's a bad or a wrong decision. I think Mancini has taken them as far as he can. Could he win another english title? Yes, with more investment, as he'd say. But he was found wanting in Europe with Inter as well, what happened with City is nothing new. So while you can stick with your manager, if you come to realise his limits, why wait?
People said the same thing about Hughes when Mancini was rumoured.
Not scared in the slightest.
This is bollox really. A club record 96 points in the league is a disaster? In his first season? Only pipped by one of the greatest club teams of all time at the peak of their powers. Bar challenging for the CL (and he still did better there than what Mancini's managed), what expectations did you have for him?
His record with Villarreal, Malaga and Madrid is a class above Mancini's CV. As Amir says, he's only flavour of the month amongst people who hadn't heard of him until a few weeks ago. I'd be surprised if Martin Samuel knew much until he researched his piece this week. And that lower profile Pellegrini has cultivated is because he isn't an attention-seeking dick like Mourinho.
If I was the city owner or the fans, the thing I'd find the most worrying about Mancini is how he believes the squad needs much more investment every transfer window. He's already spent loads and yet when you hear him speak, he comes across as someone who's working on a shoe string budget and needs the owners to open up a bit.
I dont think he deserves to be sacked but judging from his interview, the only way to improve according to him is to spend big every summer. Thats poor imo and if true, City need someone better specially with the FFP coming up.
Mancini is a rubbish manager and a worse person.
Luckily as a United fan they kind of balanced out.
Luckily as a United fan they kind of balanced out.
They won nothing, knocked out of the cup early doors, didn't get anywhere in Europe despite having an embatrrasment of riches in terms of talent. Spain was then (even more so than it is now) a two horse race.
You could argue he was treated unfairly by Madrid who expected instant success- but he's arguably stepping into exactly the same situation at City with a team full of ego's.
Mancini has won 4 league titles and umpteen cups, so how you can say his CV is any better I dont know.
He's probably a decent manager, but for me, not neccessarily any better than Mancini. The fact that he's going to have to come in and reshape the squad to his liking might buy him some time but I dont see the point - they're potentially taking a step or two back to hopefully move forward when Mancini probably needed a couple of players to do the same.
He wants to improve his side like any manager wants to. I dont see how that equates to "spending big" every transfer window. City have a sqaud with top class players at one end and average players at the other who still have to play regularly.
The owners were supposedly ambitious and want to do well in Europe - but then don't seem to want to give him the means to do so.
As an example, last season they had Lescott and Kompany and only Savic in reserve. They then sell his squad players (like De Jong and Johnson) who had a real impact last year and replace him with players he doesnt want, who aren't anywhere near that standard.
The biggest irony about it all is that even if that is an issue, and it could well be - the net result of bringing a new man is he'll usually want to off-load a number of high earners who dont fit his ideas and replace them. So insteand of buying one or two you end up with half a new team waiting to bed in.
Oh imagine the meltdown on here.
Imagine if SSN broke the story that Mancini had been sacked and had been replaced by SAF. They offered him £15m a year and the offer was too good so he retired from United and went to City.
How do you know its the owners doing the buying/selling and not him? The likes of Maicon, Rodwell, Garcia, the Swansea winger(forgot his name) are all his signings, they spent close to 50mil iirc last summer and bought all dross that added nothing to their team. As the manager, its him that decided to sell De Jong and sign Garcia rather than giving him a new deal. City being City, you can be sure Garcia isnt on peanuts himself. Its him that has to be blamed for choosing to buy these players.
And its plain wrong to say he hasnt been given the resources to do well in Europe, they've thrown money everywhere. No team can continue to spend the way City have every summer, there comes a time when you have to build on what you have. After pissing away 50mil on dross last summer, you cannot start the "we need to spend massively" talk in jan itself. Throwing money at problems seems to be his mantra and I wont be surprised if the owners dont buy to it.
Oh imagine the meltdown on here.
Imagine if SSN broke the story that Mancini had been sacked and had been replaced by SAF. They offered him £15m a year and the offer was too good so he retired from United and went to City.
Agent SAF bringing City down from the inside
He's been relatively vocal about it if I recall. He gave a list of potential signings to Brian Marwood and they signed none of those players. So its at least highly questionable that the new players were the ones he wanted.
It's no coincidence that the likes of De Jong and Johnson were on large wages and were moved on because they werent regulars. The incoming players will be on good salaries but probably less overall.
And I didnt say he hasn't had the resources to do well at all. It's all about perspective. He won the league last year and the FA Cup the year before that. This season they've finished a comfortable second in the league and got to the FA Cup final (the team probably being affected by the speculation pre-match) - so have been in the mix for silverware. His tensure has hardly been a disaster overall.
Its impossible to win the league every year. You need a bit of luck with injuries, your rivals to drop points at key times and consistency, but ultimately only one team can do it. The suggestion here is that what Mancini has done appears not to be enough to keep his job - which to me is mad.
The new manager (whomever it is) seems to need to win the title as soon as he arrives? Even if he wins it the year after he's only achieved what the previous bloke did?
To me stability is the key to sustained success. City were going alright under Mancini and they probably had a slight advantage next season over United and Chelsea with continuity and being ready to hit the ground running. They've now conceded that advantage, of which (as a United fan) I'm glad. It just seems bizzare.
Feels great knowing their temporary smugness has been replaced with the oh too familiar glumness. Going to be a long hard summer for the bitter berties.
Mancini can't be surprised by city's owners if they're bringing in Pellegrini behind his back. It's exactly what happened when they brought Mancini in behind Mark Hughes' back. He knows how they work, he knows they're shady.
This has been posted on Facebook
Once a King...Always a loser?
Massive support for Mancini.
Seriously, look at the crudely scribbled blue moons on that banner. It's hilarious.
Didn't know Benjamin Button was a blueMassive support for Mancini.
- Status