Is Mancini Shit?

[Nightcat]

I have to agree entirely.

 

Mourinho?

Could be an instant hit, will want to spend even more money, likely to piss off after 2 years and we'd be left with seeking another manager AND they'd want a new set of players of their own.

 

Guardiola?

He's no longer an option (if ever he was), he's yet to prove himself at multiple clubs

 

Benitez?

More of the same I feel. Some good points, some bad ones. It would feel like changing the manager like for like in many ways.

 

Loew?

 

Klopp?

 

How about Rodgers? Why is he not in your list?

[s(k)aturation]

How about Rodgers? Why is he not in your list?

 

Quite.

We need an explanation.

[TheHowieLama]

1. 
   

How about Rodgers? Why is he not in your list?

 

The fella has the Liverpool job - why would he leave?

[Unrighteous]

In comparison to Chelsea/United (and even Arsenal), I don't mind City at all. I'd much prefer City winning the title every fucking year than any of those lot, really.

 

If we're not going to win it? Why not City? Mancini could have easily saved us some aggravation by being a decent manager and winning the title again this year, but he's having trouble taking the most expensively assembled squad in England's history and getting them to win fucking football matches.

[Nightcat]

1. 
   

 

The fella has the Liverpool job - why would he leave?

 

I didn't say he would leave, but you can't stop rival fans from including our manager or players in their shopping list. Just curious to know why he did not include him in his list.

[therevivalist]

He's no more than an average manager; any decent manager would've shown a lot more for the kind of resources he has basically wasted. His last purchases were mediocre, his tactics poor and leadership apparently weak. His persistence with Balotelli, for instance, in which he was willing to take too much crap, I think basically undermined his standing as a leader and an authority with the rest of the squad. Furthermore, Mancini should have seen it coming when the Scum bought Van Persie; the counter move would've been of course to get himself one world class goal machine of a similar caliber instead of wasting his money on two/ three average players. Ferguscom beat him with the purchase of Van Persie and Mancini did not get the full import of that move.

[s(k)aturation]

I didn't say he would leave, but you can't stop rival fans from including our manager or players in their shopping list. Just curious to know why he did not include him in his list.

 

I actually thought you were joking.

Good po' face.

[Lurtz]

How come Fanny is on here 24/7 - and always right after we have a heartbreaker and ain't here now?

 

Because he's a sycophantic, condescending cunt? Just a thought.

[Code]

Because he's a sycophantic, condescending cunt? Just a thought.

 

If you try just a tiny bit more, maybe you can manage to sound a little bit angrier.

 

What on earth have Fanchester done to let you unleash your inferiority rage on him?

 

[Unrighteous]

Because he's a sycophantic, condescending cunt? Just a thought.

 

Honestly, I reckon Fanchester is alright.

[TheHowieLama]

I didn't say he would leave, but you can't stop rival fans from including our manager or players in their shopping list. Just curious to know why he did not include him in his list.

 

Cuz they know he won't leave. They're realistic.

[Nightcat]

Someone fucked this topic. I had to scroll to the right to even post a reply.

 

Cuz they know he won't leave. They're realistic.

 

ah right. we are safe then.:whistle:

[s(k)aturation]

No, nothing much wrong with Fanchester.

Unlike his team.

[Ted]

Gaz Baz: lol

[thesouthafrican]

Easy this management lark, isn't it?

 

Exactly.

 

For me, the reason why the Mancs have been up there for so long in this country is because Ferguson recognises the importance of simplicity.

 

Well either that, in which case all the managers of the top sides are just complete tools or else Ferguson manages to get results because of other factors, be it managerial continuity, man management, a certain sway over referees. Whatever.

 

I don't know too many statistics, but I think that the league table is a pretty good arbiter of form. The table says City are the second best team in the Premiership, and to my mind that makes Mancini better than most of those who would be fêted to replace him.

[zigackly]

The table says City are the second best team in the Premiership, and to my mind that makes Mancini better than most of those who would be fêted to replace him.

 

That's far too simplistic a way to judge it, because it completely ignores the disparity in resources between them and other clubs, as well as any other mitigating circumstances.

[fowler9]

they've got comfortably the best squad in the league and aside from Madrid/Barca/Bayern I don't think anyone in Europe is better than them on paper, their transfer dealings last summer were shocking though, they could've used the momentum from the title win and go on to dominate had they brought the right players in

 

I don't buy that Van Persie rejected them to go to Scum, it seems they bid but I can't see them having been seriously interested or he'd have followed the money, looks like thats been a very costly error on their part

[Code]

they've got comfortably the best squad in the league and aside from Madrid/Barca/Bayern I don't think anyone in Europe is better than them on paper, their transfer dealings last summer were shocking though, they could've used the momentum from the title win and go on to dominate had they brought the right players in

 

I don't buy that Van Persie rejected them to go to Scum, it seems they bid but I can't see them having been seriously interested or he'd have followed the money, looks like thats been a very costly error on their part

 

How will you justify this? To me the Chelsea squad pisses all over the City squad.

 

City have better strikers, thats it, Chelsea are better everywhere else.

[fowler9]

well I'll base this on if I was picking their sides rather than the sides they tend to play

 

I'd say City's best XI would be

 

---------------Hart-------------

Zabaleta--Kompany--Lescott--Clichy

----------Garcia---Toure-----------

Silva---------Tevez-----------Nasri

-------------Aguero----------------

 

I'd say thats pretty strong all round Aguero, Silva, Tevez, Toure, Kompany, Zabaleta nd Hart are all among the best players in their position in the leaguem the left of midfield is questionable but Nasri on his day can be brilliant but he doesn't seem to have the right mentality, Clichy has his weaknesses but is generally pretty good, Garcia hasn't been great yet but is a good player and I think he will get better and Lescott can be improved on but will do a job

 

Chelsea I'd say

 

--------------Cech-------------

Ivanovic---Luiz---Cahill----Cole

----------Ramires--Lampard----

Mata----------Oscar-------Hazard

---------------Ba-----------------

 

Goalkeeper is very iffy these days albeit capable of brilliance, two really good full backs which is an area they probably have the edge over City, Ivanovic and Zabaleta are pretty evenly matched but Cole is better than Clichy, I've gone for Cahill and Luiz at centre back but Terry could easily be included over either, all three are most of the time very good but also capable of being very bad at the same time, in centre midfield Lampard and Ramires are both excellent at what they do but lack defensive nouse whilst putting Mikel in with/instead of them would significantly reduce the quality of their midfield play, 3 behind the forward are all very good players, Mata is fantastic and Hazard can be but is also a little overrated and inconsistant for me, Oscar will be a top player but still has a lot to learn and I rate Ba but I'm not convinced he is on the top level of strikers

 

as for squad players City can call on the likes of Richards, Maicon, Nastybitch, K.Toure, Kolarov, Barry, Milner, Sinclair, Rodwell, Dzeko and Guidetti, none of whom are really outstanding but most of which can come in and won't let you down and aren't bad options to have.

 

With Chelsea we're talking Azpilcueta, Ferreira and Bertrand who I think are all pretty average although Bertrand may come good, whoever doesn't play out of Terry/Cahill/Luiz which is a good option to have, Romeu who is okay but none of the managers seem sure how to fit him into the team, Mikel I don't rate one bit, Moses is an excellent option and Marin could be but has generally been poor, Benayoun is past it and god knows what your going to get with Torres but its mostly shit these days

 

Granted I would say if Chelsea had their loan players Courtois, De Bruyne, Essien and Lukaku back their squad would be looking strong

[Gym Beglin]

The Mancs have played 25, won 20, drawn 2 and lost 3. Only fools would think that could be bettered resultswise, good squad or not.

.

 

Yet City won the league last season, and now you think it's unrealistic for them to at least equal the Mancs this season?

 

Yes City have had some dire performances from players, but let's also look at United. Rooney was out for a while and not bothering the goalkeepers until recently, and players like Young and Valencia have been anonymous, even Hernandez has been quiet really, and Welbeck has fuck all goals to his name.

 

United have 3 players in the top 50 scorers so far this season, those being Van Persie (18), Rooney (10), and Hernandez (8).

United's top assister is Rooney with 7, whereas Gerrard, Podolski and Mata have 9.

 

United have conceded 10 more than City as well, in fact, they've conceded more than City, Chelsea, Tottenham, Everton, Arsenal, Swansea and Stoke.

 

Point being, if nobody can catch them now, when there's so much improvement that can still be made to the side, then what hope anyone ever catching them again?

 

Their strength is the goals they score, 60 for the season, 28% of their shots on target go in. 14 shots per game on average, which is less than us who average 17. Man City average 16 shots per game. In terms of what percentage are on target, it reads United - 60% and City 58%.

 

Is it as simple as City need to score more goals?

 

I think the margins are fine, but opposition shit themselves more against United than they do against City. United don't particularly defend well, they dont produce wave upon wave of attack, they dont keep the ball for vast periods of the game either. So you end up asking, what exactly DO they fucking do to win the games they have?

 

IMHO, teams suffer a prolapse when United put the pressure on, whereas good teams can hit them on the break. It's just that you dont see it much in this division because, quite frankly, there aren't really any good teams about. But someone like Bilbao last season fucking spanked them, and the CL teams ran them out of town.

 

Real Madrid could batter them. I know they've been through a bad period and all that, but Madrid are made for counter attacking. It's just that they dont get to show it much in La Liga because every side bar Barca sit deep against them.

 

FootStats - Complete UK Football Statistics Analysis - League Tables

[Code]

People need to realise what they are comparing City with here, Man Utd have been up there fighting at the top for the last 20 years and they know everything about what is needed to stay there.

 

The bar Utd have set is extremely high and the fact is they have not had less than 57 points after 26 games once the last 5 seasons.

 

When we came second under Rafa we had 55 points at this stage of the season and Chelsea with all their money have only managed Utd minimum once the last 5 years.

 

12/13:

1. Man United 25 20 2 3 60-31 +29 62p

2. Man City 26 15 8 3 48-24 +24 53p

11/12:

1. Man City 26 20 3 3 67 - 19 +48 63p

2. Man United 26 19 4 3 63 - 26 +37 61p

10/11:

1. Man United 26 16 9 1 57-25 +32 57p

2. Arsenal 26 16 5 5 56-27 +29 53p

09/10:

1. Chelsea 26 18 4 4 61-22 +39 58p

2. Man United 26 18 3 5 62-21 +41 57p

08/09:

1. Man United 26 19 5 2 46-11 +35 62p

2. Liverpool 26 15 10 1 43-18 +25 55p

 

 

If we look at the last 5 seasons together the picture gets even clearer.

 

Money and good players is not enough to knock the mancs off that top spot, you need to get everything right at once.

 

PL standing 08/13

1. Man United 177 126 28 23 381-153 406p, point average 2.29p

2. Chelsea 178 105 38 35 360-163 353p, point average 1.98p

3. Man City 178 97 39 42 332-181 330p, point average 1.85p

4. Arsenal 178 95 44 39 347-199 329p, point average 1.85p

5. Tottenham 178 85 45 48 277-203 300p, point average 1.69p

6. Liverpool 177 83 46 48 288-178 295p, point average 1.67p

7. Everton 177 71 63 43 256-201 276p, point average 1.56p

8. Aston Villa 177 57 62 58 214-248 233p, point average 1.32p

 

God I feel dirty posting this, but the manc cunts have scored almsot 100 goals more than us just in 5 seasons and they have got more than 100 points more than us in the same season.

 

Hopefully it will soon end.

[fowler9]

I don't think people are saying he should be sacked for not winning the league more for not even competing coupled with European failure two years on the trot

[Lurtz]

Honestly, I reckon Fanchester is alright.

 

Hmm. Maybe 'cunt' is a bit harsh. Still find him patronising and condescending though.

[Code]

I don't think people are saying he should be sacked for not winning the league more for not even competing coupled with European failure two years on the trot

 

Ferguson has been with the mancs for 27 years and he has won the Champions League twice, Wenger has been with Arsenal for 17 years and never won it etc, etc

 

Again its not just something you throw money at and can expect to win.

[fowler9]

Ferguson has been with the mancs for 27 years and he has won the Champions League twice, Wenger has been with Arsenal for 17 years and never won it etc, etc

 

Again its not just something you throw money at and can expect to win.

 

no but you'd expect significantly better than what they have done