IS Bobby Mancini THE MAN?

[CityFanFromRome]

back to back prearce like performances, but we won and that is what counts.

its not exactly entertaining, but time is on his side. He needs to sort out the away performances and rapid.

I think three in a row, but unlike Pearce he has managed to get four home goals and two wins.

it's not like we ever lose at home anyway.
so far we've traded a guy who saw his arse against the small teams (without ever losing to them) but got us up for the big ones/cup, for a guy who can grind (fucking grind) out results against shit teams at home but has yet to get us up for a big game at all, whatsoever.
In the league, have we even scored an equaliser under Mancini? We've certainly never equalised and gone on to win (have we?). And that is how every game feels - we score first we'll probably close it out (although Bolton had more chances than us tonight), we concede and we're fucked.

Why do I have the feeling that you've been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked? I've never seen one post from you since he came with anything less that venom directed at him/his style/etc.

Of course this is not the most entertaining football, but when he came we had a big problem, the goals leaked even against lesser sides, so he started working on that. You can't win a title if you don't have a solid defence conceding few goals. Take Arsenal, they have scored the same goals than Chelsea, but they conceded 50% more. Who is top of the league?

I have to say that so far Mancini reminds me of Ranieri as he first came to Roma this season, focusing on the defence as he knows we can somehow score. It took Ranieri a couple months, but now he's on a 19 games unbeaten run considering all competitions, if Mancini achieves something like that we are going to stroll to fourth, which atm is the only thing that matters.

[Dunne's Half-Time Pint]

back to back prearce like performances, but we won and that is what counts.

its not exactly entertaining, but time is on his side. He needs to sort out the away performances and rapid.

I think three in a row, but unlike Pearce he has managed to get four home goals and two wins.

it's not like we ever lose at home anyway.
so far we've traded a guy who saw his arse against the small teams (without ever losing to them) but got us up for the big ones/cup, for a guy who can grind (fucking grind) out results against shit teams at home but has yet to get us up for a big game at all, whatsoever.
In the league, have we even scored an equaliser under Mancini? We've certainly never equalised and gone on to win (have we?). And that is how every game feels - we score first we'll probably close it out (although Bolton had more chances than us tonight), we concede and we're fucked.

Why do I have the feeling that you've been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked? I've never seen one post from you since he came with anything less that venom directed at him/his style/etc.

You could not begin to understand one fucking tenth of the passion, the sheer fucking love, I have for Manchester City. Nor do you seem to truly understand the connotations of "venom" - you're very close to getting a fucking demonstration though with that fucking drivel.

[Dunne's Half-Time Pint]

ALL MANCINI HAD TO DO WAS SORT OUT THE DEFENSE..............THE REST OF THE PITCH WAS FINE..ACTUALLY OUR ATTACKING PLAY WAS ELECTRIC.

NOW IT,S NOT.

IM HAPPY WITH 3 POINTS LIKE ANYONE ELSE IS BUT IM 100% NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY WE PLAY...ACTUALLY WE PLAYED SHITE BORING FOOTBALL TODAY...JUST LIKE WE DID AGAINST POMPEY.

WHEN I COMPARE SPURS VILLA ARS..SCUM,BINDIPPERS(LATELY) AND CHELSEA...WE WILL NEVER WIN WITH THAT CRAP KIND OF PERFORMANCE....PROBABLY GET A DRAW AT THE MOST.

Don't forget Everton.

[gillie]

back to back prearce like performances, but we won and that is what counts.

its not exactly entertaining, but time is on his side. He needs to sort out the away performances and rapid.

I think three in a row, but unlike Pearce he has managed to get four home goals and two wins.

it's not like we ever lose at home anyway.
so far we've traded a guy who saw his arse against the small teams (without ever losing to them) but got us up for the big ones/cup, for a guy who can grind (fucking grind) out results against shit teams at home but has yet to get us up for a big game at all, whatsoever.
In the league, have we even scored an equaliser under Mancini? We've certainly never equalised and gone on to win (have we?). And that is how every game feels - we score first we'll probably close it out (although Bolton had more chances than us tonight), we concede and we're fucked.

Why do I have the feeling that you've been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked? I've never seen one post from you since he came with anything less that venom directed at him/his style/etc.

You could not begin to understand one fucking tenth of the passion, the sheer fucking love, I have for Manchester City. Nor do you seem to truly understand the connotations of "venom" - you're very close to getting a fucking demonstration though with that fucking drivel.

Dunny leave him alone he asked a perfectly straightforward question and you come out with that vitriolic bollox.Answer his question rationally dont just try to brow beat him with threats.

[Dunne's Half-Time Pint]

Why do I have the feeling that you've been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked? I've never seen one post from you since he came with anything less that venom directed at him/his style/etc.

You could not begin to understand one fucking tenth of the passion, the sheer fucking love, I have for Manchester City. Nor do you seem to truly understand the connotations of "venom" - you're very close to getting a fucking demonstration though with that fucking drivel.

Dunny leave him alone he asked a perfectly straightforward question and you come out with that vitriolic bollox.Answer his question rationally dont just try to brow beat him with threats.

My original questions were far more reasonable than his.
Why does he get the feeling I have been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked?
It's a stupid fucking question because (a) I haven't, (b) I've been absolutely consistent and transparent in my views since I've been on this site, let alone in the last 5(?) months since this fucking Roma fan turned up. If he's never seen "one post with anything less than venom directed at Mancini" then he's either not been reading/understanding my posts, or he's wilfully misrepresenting me. either way....

[gillie]

DHTP CFFR has been on the board longer than me not just the last 5 months as you say and imo is a decent poster he thinks you have an axe to grind regarding Mancini and he asked the question all he wants is an answer.Btw i think our football is shite at the moment so much so i have started a thread labelling it serie a in the prem.

[CityFanFromRome]

My original questions were far more reasonable than his.
Why does he get the feeling I have been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked?
It's a stupid fucking question because (a) I haven't, (b) I've been absolutely consistent and transparent in my views since I've been on this site, let alone in the last 5(?) months since this fucking Roma fan turned up. If he's never seen "one post with anything less than venom directed at Mancini" then he's either not been reading/understanding my posts, or he's wilfully misrepresenting me. either way....

Ah, so the real issue is out then. Do you think I'd be here if I didn't care for Manchester City? I may be a Roma fan because it is where I am born and live, but this takes nothing away from my being a City fan, and if youthink like that then it is your problem.

As for why I wrote what I did, I explaind my reasoning. I have honestly not seen a positive post about Mancini from you so far, I may have missed them and if I have I'm sorry for that, but going from what I have seen this is the opinion I have formed and was just asking why. Anyway if you're so bothered by it forget I ever said anything and carry on.

[Dunne's Half-Time Pint]

My original questions were far more reasonable than his.
Why does he get the feeling I have been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked?
It's a stupid fucking question because (a) I haven't, (b) I've been absolutely consistent and transparent in my views since I've been on this site, let alone in the last 5(?) months since this fucking Roma fan turned up. If he's never seen "one post with anything less than venom directed at Mancini" then he's either not been reading/understanding my posts, or he's wilfully misrepresenting me. either way....

Ah, so the real issue is out then. Do you think I'd be here if I didn't care for Manchester City? I may be a Roma fan because it is where I am born and live, but this takes nothing away from my being a City fan, and if youthink like that then it is your problem.

As for why I wrote what I did, I explaind my reasoning. I have honestly not seen a positive post about Mancini from you so far, I may have missed them and if I have I'm sorry for that, but going from what I have seen this is the opinion I have formed and was just asking why. Anyway if you're so bothered by it forget I ever said anything and carry on.

that's not the "real issue" - the "real issue" is that you were chatting utter shit/criticising me in an absolutely unfounded manner. as if my love for city, my desire for us to succeed, could ever, in any way be subjugated to an agenda against an individual. I've been tearing my hair out for 18 months because of people exhibiting that sort of behaviour... now I'm tearing my hair out because their hypocrisy has been exposed but they refuse to acknowlege it.

But yeah, I do find it a bit rich being lectured by someone who, however you paint it, supports a different club.
I'm sure you 'care' for city - whatever - but you sure as shit don't care anywhere near as much as I do.

[MaineRoadMemories]

I spent most of the game texting friends as I had little interest in the football for large periods. Its a yawn-fest and it hasn't been entertaining to watch since the Blackburn game.

However, seeing a goal of THAT quality by Adebayor was worth the bordom. It annoys the fuck out of me though that we keep letting shite teams like Hull, Portsmouth and now Bolton control the midfield and boss the game.

[Beefymcfc]

Can I say, there was a bloke who I've known for years from the Kippax and the North Stand who stood up when it was quiet, in the 1st half, and had a severe rant at the players and manager. Everyone around just stopped and stared in amazement, he was so verement. Anyway, I pulled him after getting a pint and asked the obvious. He replied that if he wanted to see football like that he wouldn't have been so passionate about getting shut of Hughes!?!

I have to say, it was hard to disagree!

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

back to back prearce like performances, but we won and that is what counts.

its not exactly entertaining, but time is on his side. He needs to sort out the away performances and rapid.

I think three in a row, but unlike Pearce he has managed to get four home goals and two wins.

it's not like we ever lose at home anyway.
so far we've traded a guy who saw his arse against the small teams (without ever losing to them) but got us up for the big ones/cup, for a guy who can grind (fucking grind) out results against shit teams at home but has yet to get us up for a big game at all, whatsoever.
In the league, have we even scored an equaliser under Mancini? We've certainly never equalised and gone on to win (have we?). And that is how every game feels - we score first we'll probably close it out (although Bolton had more chances than us tonight), we concede and we're fucked.

Why do I have the feeling that you've been against Mancini from the moment Hughes was sacked? I've never seen one post from you since he came with anything less that venom directed at him/his style/etc.

You could not begin to understand one fucking tenth of the passion, the sheer fucking love, I have for Manchester City. Nor do you seem to truly understand the connotations of "venom" - you're very close to getting a fucking demonstration though with that fucking drivel.

MEGA.

Mike Summerbee, Kippax and Helen Turner, take a bow.

[ant london]

Antti.....you wanted to see if people were changing original votes

I am doing so now

YES has become MAYBE

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Antti.....you wanted to see if people were changing original votes

I am doing so now

YES has become MAYBE

K mate.

What I find somewhat interesting is that after game won last night, NO has got at least five more votes.

[Alex Sapphire]

What I find somewhat interesting is that after game won last night, NO has got at least five more votes.

maybe because the performance was so poor
maybe because we just played 2 of the "average" teams that Hughes failed to beat (resulting in his sacking) and didn't see a great improvement, losing one and being unconvincing against the other with home advantage.
more likley because it was the 1st time Mancini had "all" of the players including his signings available and he laid the team out "his way" for all to see.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

What I find somewhat interesting is that after game won last night, NO has got at least five more votes.

maybe because the performance was so poor
maybe because we just played 2 of the "average" teams that Hughes failed to beat (resulting in his sacking) and didn't see a great improvement, losing one and being unconvincing against the other with home advantage.
more likley because it was the 1st time Mancini had "all" of the players including his signings available and he laid the team out "his way" for all to see.

Well for me 3 points from those games is improvement on 2 points earlier in the season. And 5th is improvement on 6th. And giant improvement on 10th.

But like I said, we all have different emphasis and obviously yours, and those 5 people, is to be entertained. Or am I wrong?

[Original Dub]

What I find somewhat interesting is that after game won last night, NO has got at least five more votes.

maybe because the performance was so poor
maybe because we just played 2 of the "average" teams that Hughes failed to beat (resulting in his sacking) and didn't see a great improvement, losing one and being unconvincing against the other with home advantage.
more likley because it was the 1st time Mancini had "all" of the players including his signings available and he laid the team out "his way" for all to see.

Well for me 3 points from those games is improvement on 2 points earlier in the season. And 5th is improvement on 6th. And giant improvement on 10th.

But like I said, we all have different emphasis and obviously yours, and those 5 people, is to be entertained. Or am I wrong?

If your reason for following city really is all about results as you are so strongly putting across in several threads, why bother watching the match? Why not just subscribe to text alerts, that way you know that we've scored and you get the result.

No matter how people want to paint it up, football generates so much money because it is entertainment, as are all GAMES.

If you go into a fight to the death, its win at all costs because survival is at stake, but this is a spectator sport and at the moment, this fella is producing a dire spectacle and I honestly believe that Stuart Pearce would have gotten at least the same amount of points if he had this team under him.

You slate Pearce regularly and you call his reign the "dark days", yet the only reason we weren't picking up results was because we didn't have the individual superstars we have now.

The football was very, very similar... because we had to play that way to survive, given the shit team we had.

That shouldn't be the case now, at all.

A couple more games like this and absolutely in no way is he the man.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

What I find somewhat interesting is that after game won last night, NO has got at least five more votes.

maybe because the performance was so poor
maybe because we just played 2 of the "average" teams that Hughes failed to beat (resulting in his sacking) and didn't see a great improvement, losing one and being unconvincing against the other with home advantage.
more likley because it was the 1st time Mancini had "all" of the players including his signings available and he laid the team out "his way" for all to see.

Well for me 3 points from those games is improvement on 2 points earlier in the season. And 5th is improvement on 6th. And giant improvement on 10th.

But like I said, we all have different emphasis and obviously yours, and those 5 people, is to be entertained. Or am I wrong?

If your reason for following city really is all about results as you are so strongly putting across in several threads, why bother watching the match? Why not just subscribe to text alerts, that way you know that we've scored and you get the result.

No matter how people want to paint it up, football generates so much money because it is entertainment, as are all GAMES.

If you go into a fight to the death, its win at all costs because survival is at stake, but this is a spectator sport and at the moment, this fella is producing a dire spectacle and I honestly believe that Stuart Pearce would have gotten at least the same amount of points if he had this team under him.
You slate Pearce regularly and you call his reign the "dark days", yet the only reason we weren't picking up results was because we didn't have the individual superstars we have now.
The football was very, very similar... because we had to play that way to survive, given the shit team we had.

That shouldn't be the case now, at all.

A couple more games like this and absolutely in no way is he the man.

I can honestly say that I don't agree with this at all.

And I watch City because of excitement of it all.
"Will we score?", "can we keep a clean sheet?", "fuck that was close", "Maybe we'll get a winner from this attack", "WHAT A SAVE". Those are some of the millions of thoughts going through my head during a game. My heart is racing and pulse is around 200. Ready to jump up any given second.
You know, the excitement of it all. I'm not as calm and collected that I could enjoy piece of skill if it leads to nothing for example. I often watch the games again, especially the ones we've won, and enjoy these little things knowing the outcome.
In a nutshell, I watch City because of the BUZZ I get from watching them. It's one of the few things in my life where I'm still in touch with my inner child, hoping and praying for unlikely, and the sheer rush of seeing us score and win. Better than sex.

[Original Dub]

What I find somewhat interesting is that after game won last night, NO has got at least five more votes.

maybe because the performance was so poor
maybe because we just played 2 of the "average" teams that Hughes failed to beat (resulting in his sacking) and didn't see a great improvement, losing one and being unconvincing against the other with home advantage.
more likley because it was the 1st time Mancini had "all" of the players including his signings available and he laid the team out "his way" for all to see.

Well for me 3 points from those games is improvement on 2 points earlier in the season. And 5th is improvement on 6th. And giant improvement on 10th.

But like I said, we all have different emphasis and obviously yours, and those 5 people, is to be entertained. Or am I wrong?

If your reason for following city really is all about results as you are so strongly putting across in several threads, why bother watching the match? Why not just subscribe to text alerts, that way you know that we've scored and you get the result.

No matter how people want to paint it up, football generates so much money because it is entertainment, as are all GAMES.

If you go into a fight to the death, its win at all costs because survival is at stake, but this is a spectator sport and at the moment, this fella is producing a dire spectacle and I honestly believe that Stuart Pearce would have gotten at least the same amount of points if he had this team under him.
You slate Pearce regularly and you call his reign the "dark days", yet the only reason we weren't picking up results was because we didn't have the individual superstars we have now.
The football was very, very similar... because we had to play that way to survive, given the shit team we had.

That shouldn't be the case now, at all.

A couple more games like this and absolutely in no way is he the man.

I can honestly say that I don't agree with this at all.

And I watch City because of excitement of it all.
"Will we score?", "can we keep a clean sheet?", "fuck that was close", "Maybe we'll get a winner from this attack", "WHAT A SAVE". Those are some of the millions of thoughts going through my head during a game. My heart is racing and pulse is around 200. Ready to jump up any given second.
You know, the excitement of it all. I'm not as calm and collected that I could enjoy piece of skill if it leads to nothing for example. I often watch the games again, especially the ones we've won, and enjoy these little things knowing the outcome.
In a nutshell, I watch City because of the BUZZ I get from watching them. It's one of the few things in my life where I'm still in touch with my inner child, hoping and praying for unlikely, and the sheer rush of seeing us score and win. Better than sex.

Stuart Pearce's first 14 games:

Lost 1
Drew 6
Won 7
Goals for: 20
Goals against: 10




Mancini's first 11 games:

Lost 3
Drew 0
Won 8
GF: 22
GA: 11

So Mancini has three games to play and we can match the two toe for toe because at the moment, the football is very very similar, although Pearce had a much much weaker squad and we played some exciting stuff in his first 9 games, beating Liverpool, beating Villa away and the Boro game at the end of the season was the best atmosphere for a good while.

So I will stick to my argument and say that so far, I believe Stuart Pearce would have gotten at least as many and quite possibly more points than Mancini with a very similar brand of football.... there's absolutely no reason to believe he wouldn't when he did it with an over £200m less talented squad.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

maybe because the performance was so poor
maybe because we just played 2 of the "average" teams that Hughes failed to beat (resulting in his sacking) and didn't see a great improvement, losing one and being unconvincing against the other with home advantage.
more likley because it was the 1st time Mancini had "all" of the players including his signings available and he laid the team out "his way" for all to see.

Well for me 3 points from those games is improvement on 2 points earlier in the season. And 5th is improvement on 6th. And giant improvement on 10th.

But like I said, we all have different emphasis and obviously yours, and those 5 people, is to be entertained. Or am I wrong?

If your reason for following city really is all about results as you are so strongly putting across in several threads, why bother watching the match? Why not just subscribe to text alerts, that way you know that we've scored and you get the result.

No matter how people want to paint it up, football generates so much money because it is entertainment, as are all GAMES.

If you go into a fight to the death, its win at all costs because survival is at stake, but this is a spectator sport and at the moment, this fella is producing a dire spectacle and I honestly believe that Stuart Pearce would have gotten at least the same amount of points if he had this team under him.
You slate Pearce regularly and you call his reign the "dark days", yet the only reason we weren't picking up results was because we didn't have the individual superstars we have now.
The football was very, very similar... because we had to play that way to survive, given the shit team we had.

That shouldn't be the case now, at all.

A couple more games like this and absolutely in no way is he the man.

I can honestly say that I don't agree with this at all.

And I watch City because of excitement of it all.
"Will we score?", "can we keep a clean sheet?", "fuck that was close", "Maybe we'll get a winner from this attack", "WHAT A SAVE". Those are some of the millions of thoughts going through my head during a game. My heart is racing and pulse is around 200. Ready to jump up any given second.
You know, the excitement of it all. I'm not as calm and collected that I could enjoy piece of skill if it leads to nothing for example. I often watch the games again, especially the ones we've won, and enjoy these little things knowing the outcome.
In a nutshell, I watch City because of the BUZZ I get from watching them. It's one of the few things in my life where I'm still in touch with my inner child, hoping and praying for unlikely, and the sheer rush of seeing us score and win. Better than sex.

Stuart Pearce's first 14 games:

Lost 1
Drew 6
Won 7
Goals for: 20
Goals against: 10




Mancini's first 11 games:

Lost 3
Drew 0
Won 8
GF: 22
GA: 11

So Mancini has three games to play and we can match the two toe for toe because at the moment, the football is very very similar, although Pearce had a much much weaker squad and we played some exciting stuff in his first 9 games, beating Liverpool, beating Villa away and the Boro game at the end of the season was the best atmosphere for a good while.

So I will stick to my argument and say that so far, I believe Stuart Pearce would have gotten at least as many and quite possibly more points than Mancini with a very similar brand of football.... there's absolutely no reason to believe he wouldn't when he did it with an over £200m less talented squad.

[Original Dub]

Right so, thanks for your input Antti?!