Mancini: City not good enough to win Champions League

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Zzonked wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Exactly this. He's spent an absolute fortune to get where he's at with City too. Compare where City are now and where Mourinho's Chelsea were during 2004-06. His record is comparatively awful.

Why do you take context into account with the 'calciopoli' thing but not the Chelsea thing? Before Chelsea won the league with Mourinho they already came second the year before. They already had a solid base where we didn't. Last year we established ourselves where Chelsea were before Mourinho came, now this year would be as if it was Mou's first year. Now compare them.

Manchester City should have become an established side in 2009/10 when they finished within touching distance of the final Champions League spot. Last season should be the one we compare to Mourinho's first season. Mancini fails significantly in comparison there despite Mourinho having a much more difficult job as he competed against a side that had finished the previous season unbeaten as he attempted to break what had previously been a duopoly of the Premier League while having to simultaneously partake in the Champions League (where they reached the semi-finals). Mancini, on the other hand, was mostly focused on the league where he finished third. I only see one winner here.

So you think finishing 5th is similar to finishing 2nd? Lettuce be serious. 3rd and 2nd is basically the same, but 5th might as well be on a different planet.

We weren't an established team last year. Our ambition wasn't even to challenge for the title, just to finish in the top 4 and try to win a cup (our chairman even said that). I don't see how you can compare us then when we didn't even have the same ambitions.

ilJuventino wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

And Napoli? Blaming this on lack of experience is quite pathetic from Mancini. Almost every single player in his squad has played in the Champions League before. They weren't good enough in the Champions League this year because he made some shocking decisions.

+ 1

Mancini is the one that isn't good enough to win the Champions League.

my thought exactly. Every CL match he picks such a defensive lineup with two holding mids which is the opposite of the high firepowered lineup he uses to dominate the EPL, makes no sense.

fluffy_kittens wrote:

ilJuventino wrote:

+ 1

Mancini is the one that isn't good enough to win the Champions League.

my thought exactly. Every CL match he picks such a defensive lineup with two holding mids which is the opposite of the high firepowered lineup he uses to dominate the EPL, makes no sense.

Obviously don't watch City in the CL...

JMB_94 wrote:

fluffy_kittens wrote:

my thought exactly. Every CL match he picks such a defensive lineup with two holding mids which is the opposite of the high firepowered lineup he uses to dominate the EPL, makes no sense.

Obviously don't watch City in the CL...

This.

Zzonked wrote:

BladeGunner14 wrote:

Manchester City should have become an established side in 2009/10 when they finished within touching distance of the final Champions League spot. Last season should be the one we compare to Mourinho's first season. Mancini fails significantly in comparison there despite Mourinho having a much more difficult job as he competed against a side that had finished the previous season unbeaten as he attempted to break what had previously been a duopoly of the Premier League while having to simultaneously partake in the Champions League (where they reached the semi-finals). Mancini, on the other hand, was mostly focused on the league where he finished third. I only see one winner here.

So you think finishing 5th is similar to finishing 2nd? Lettuce be serious. 3rd and 2nd is basically the same, but 5th might as well be on a different planet.

We weren't an established team last year. Our ambition wasn't even to challenge for the title, just to finish in the top 4 and try to win a cup (our chairman even said that). I don't see how you can compare us then when we didn't even have the same ambitions.

I don't really see much difference but okay... The team from 2009/10 contained many of the same players from 2010/11. Kompany, Lescott, Richards,De Jong, K. Toure, Tevez, Johnson... The list goes on. If you really want to compare between Mourinho's first season with Chelsea and Mancini's first with an "established side" then Mourinho would already have a clear advantage as City are on the verge of elimination from the Champions League. I think my words will be proved later on this season anyway.

The experience excuse is a poor one to use. Many players within the squad do have Champions League experience with their previous clubs, while, by that logic, Napoli have no experience either.

that is ridiculous bladegunner, 2009 man city team is different to current team

u list players like lescott who never settled into city properly until this season, richards who was severly out of form and not considered and important player, de jong who was not a regular at that time, johnson who didnt join until january etc. you leave out to many logistics. mourinho recieved a perfect team mixed with world class and young players and then added further to it, you cannot compare such a thing especially since the epl is much stronger today than it was 6 year ago

mauro=beast wrote:that is ridiculous bladegunner, 2009 man city team is different to current team

u list players like lescott who never settled into city properly until this season, richards who was severly out of form and not considered and important player, de jong who was not a regular at that time, johnson who didnt join until january etc. you leave out to many logistics. mourinho recieved a perfect team mixed with world class and young players and then added further to it, you cannot compare such a thing especially since the epl is much stronger today than it was 6 year ago

Primarily, I didn't say that the 2009 team is the same as the current one. I said it was quite similar to the one of the following season. Manchester City had become a decent side in 2009/10. I'm pretty sure even Mourinho had said at the beginning of that season that they were favourites for the title. They were well on their way to becoming a top side.

As for Mourinho, the squad he received from Ranieri wasn't a "world class side" at all. He changed that side completely when he took charge. In that first transfer window alone, he purchased Cech, Ferreira, Carvalho, Robben and Drogba who would all become integral members of his team. Not to mention the players he would later add, e.g Essien and Cole. And I would say that the Premier League is arguably not as strong as it once was, especially since Chelsea faced a very difficult task of breaking United and Arsenal's duopoly.

Mancini is a good manager. Not fantastic but good.
He won't last in the premier league. His style of play is best suited for the Italian league.

City's squad is good enough to win all trophies in the English game. The manager is what the problem is for them.

By saying "suited for the italian league" you mean he is defensive? Because I don't think that scoring over 50 goals in 20 games in defensive.

Kuled wrote:By saying "suited for the italian league" you mean he is defensive? Because I don't think that scoring over 50 goals in 20 games in defensive.

Also add to the fact that he is ripping apart the league. It is like saying forums aren't for jela.

Mancini and City haters gonna hate.

I love them both. Some people in this thread sound so bitter. The blue moon has risen and shit on all of your teams faces mwahahahahahahaha

So we can't discuss the topic because we'll be labelled as haters?

Oh yeah btw I don't really think that City getting the group of death as an excuse to why they have done poorly in Europe, if they want to be the best, they have to beat the best.

You aren't a hater though Kuled, I read your posts. Blade Gunner sounds so bitter though. It's a shame Man City will get laughed at and people will discuss the money issue when they get knocked, but most people are forgetting that a lot of the team doesn't have CL experience. You could counter that and use Tottenham as an example, but the only reason they did so well is because they knew it was going to be one of the only chances they get to play in the CL so made the most of it. Obviously City players won't have the mentality of 'oh well there's always next year', but I suppose it will be in in the back of their mind that they know they'll get another chance. Tottenham didn't have that assurance, hence why Modric wanted to join Chelsea.

Joe Hart - No CL exp
Richards - No CL exp
Zabaleta - No CL exp
Lescott - No CL exp
Kompany - Probably a shit exp at Anderlecht
Kolorav - No CL exp
Clichy - Good CL exp
Johnson - No CL exp
De Jong - No CL exp
Yaya - Good CL exp
Barry - No CL exp
Nasri - Good CL exp
Silva - Ok CL exp
Aguero - Ok CL exp
Milner - No CL exp
Dzeko - 1 groupstage and that's it
Balotelli - Ok CL exp

Forest wrote:You aren't a hater though Kuled, I read your posts. Blade Gunner sounds so bitter though. It's a shame Man City will get laughed at and people will discuss the money issue when they get knocked, but most people are forgetting that a lot of the team doesn't have CL experience. You could counter that and use Tottenham as an example, but the only reason they did so well is because they knew it was going to be one of the only chances they get to play in the CL so made the most of it. Obviously City players won't have the mentality of 'oh well there's always next year', but I suppose it will be in in the back of their mind that they know they'll get another chance. Tottenham didn't have that assurance, hence why Modric wanted to join Chelsea.

Joe Hart - No CL exp
Richards - No CL exp
Zabaleta - No CL exp
Lescott - No CL exp
Kompany - Probably a shit exp at Anderlecht
Kolorav - No CL exp
Clichy - Good CL exp
Johnson - No CL exp
De Jong - No CL exp
Yaya - Good CL exp
Barry - No CL exp
Nasri - Good CL exp
Silva - Ok CL exp
Aguero - Ok CL exp
Milner - No CL exp
Dzeko - 1 groupstage and that's it
Balotelli - Ok CL exp

^
Confirmed homosexual.

Forest wrote:You aren't a hater though Kuled, I read your posts. Blade Gunner sounds so bitter though. It's a shame Man City will get laughed at and people will discuss the money issue when they get knocked, but most people are forgetting that a lot of the team doesn't have CL experience. You could counter that and use Tottenham as an example, but the only reason they did so well is because they knew it was going to be one of the only chances they get to play in the CL so made the most of it. Obviously City players won't have the mentality of 'oh well there's always next year', but I suppose it will be in in the back of their mind that they know they'll get another chance. Tottenham didn't have that assurance, hence why Modric wanted to join Chelsea.

Joe Hart - No CL exp
Richards - No CL exp
Zabaleta - No CL exp
Lescott - No CL exp
Kompany - Probably a shit exp at Anderlecht
Kolorav - No CL exp
Clichy - Good CL exp
Johnson - No CL exp
De Jong - No CL exp
Yaya - Good CL exp
Barry - No CL exp
Nasri - Good CL exp
Silva - Ok CL exp
Aguero - Ok CL exp
Milner - No CL exp
Dzeko - 1 groupstage and that's it
Balotelli - Ok CL exp

So they have a fair amount of players who have as you call it "Ok CL exp". How much Champions League experience does the Napoli squad have? Almost no Champions League experience whatsoever. And most of City's players are in their mid to late 20's. Players like Barry, De Jong and Zabaleta have all played at the highest level in major international tournaments. These aren't children we're talking about. Also, why has Mancini spent so much money on a squad that he believes doesn't have enough Champions League experience? Surely that should bring his transfers under scrutiny. Crap excuse from a mediocre manager.