Puzzled (maybe why I'm not a top manager)

[Kladze]

Apologies if covered elsewhere, I'm on a phone.

Balotelli, for me, had one of his better games today and yet Mancini was on his case for the whole of the first half and beyond.
Then, to compound matters, come 65 minutes, he subs him off for Aguero when it seemed clear to me that Dzeko should have been the man to go - he was having a 'mare.

Anyway, thoughts?

Or is it just me?

[halnone]

agreed. Balotelli should have stayed on. his passing was brilliant imo

[sandman]

I thought Balo and Tevez both looked potentially dangerous today, I wouldnt have taken either off. But then I didnt agree with bringing my former hero DeJong on against Newcastle in May until Yaya made me look silly.

[mark_clegg]

Bobby constantly has a go at Balo because he can lash out in his native tongue, so glad he can't speak English/Spanish or the other players may get some and also get pissed off. His constant moaning sometimes has a detrimental affect to our team performance and the first in the firing line is always balo who i thought had a decent game tonight-but i'm not a manager

[sheblue]

Because Mancini wants to be sacked?

[Londonblue1]

I thought tevez should have gone off.too much hammers appreciation going on and looked destined not to score against them.or maybe it was just me.

[clawbaggio]

Agree Balo was one of our better players and shouldn't have gone off. Aguerro did nothing when he came on

[Dameerto]

Agree Balo was one of our better players and shouldn't have gone off. Aguerro did nothing when he came on

Apart from get at least one shot actually on target.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I thought it looked like he put in a really good shift yesterday.

What do you think it is that Mancio gets on his case about? Is it his positional play? It's hard to tell sometimes watching on TV what our shape is up top and who is responsible for what.

[Beefymcfc]

The way I saw it (on TV, so no other evidence) was that Mancini was having the odd chat with him and Mario didn't seem bothered by what was being said to him, ie. it was constructive rather than destructive. It seemed to be more the commentators who had already proved that they had some sort of anti-Mancini thing going on. Throw in the hand waving and slow-mo's of Mancini shaking his head, then cutting to Mario from 10 minutes before, it was quite easy to see what they were doing.

[Londonblue1]

The way I saw it (on TV, so no other evidence) was that Mancini was having the odd chat with him and Mario didn't seem bothered by what was being said to him, ie. it was constructive rather than destructive. It seemed to be more the commentators who had already proved that they had some sort of anti-Mancini thing going on. Throw in the hand waving and slow-mo's of Mancini shaking his head, then cutting to Mario from 10 minutes before, it was quite easy to see what they were doing.

This was my exact thought on this situation.it was laughable how obvious it was that the commentators were desperate to jump on balo's case even though he had not done a single thing to be picked out negatively.