Sharp-tongued and outspoken, Mancini can be prickly and, over the years, he has had his share of run-ins with other managers, most notably Fabio Capello. His enemies have also questioned his record in Serie A. As Juventus fans like to point out, “his first title was handed to him by a tribunal, his second came when Juventus were in Serie B and Milan had a points penalty [for their respective roles in the Calciopoli scandal] and he had to come from behind on the last day of the season to win his third.” Yet there is no denying that he succeeded in doing something that 15 managers before him had failed to do: deliver a title to the black-and-blue half of San Siro. And there is no question that his sides play modern, attacking football that is effective and entertaining.
Next up is Ian Herbert at the Indy, who is their MCFC expert. He is less enthusiastic about our new boss:
"Mancio" mirrors Hughes in some ways: reserved, softly spoken and a manager who has no desire to cultivate a relationship with the press. But he differs in his relationship with players and is seen as a manager who wants to be close to his players. It was part of Hughes's tough culture that he was not willing to mollycoddle his multimillionaire stars.
Neither are there signs from Mancini's eight-year coaching career that he is as keen on developing youth players as Hughes. Only when Jose Mourinho succeeded him did youngsters like Mario Balotelli and Davide Santon flourish. The future looks a very different place for City.
Kevin Buckley writes more about his bad relationship with the press in the Guardian:
Despite winning the coveted Serie A scudetto three times on the trot in his four seasons at Internazionale, his early reticence with the Italian media quickly degenerated into spikiness and culminated in a furious post-match slanging match on live television when he exchanged insults with a pundit who criticised Mancini's churlish monosyllabic responses. It was the astonishing outburst in March 2008, after seeing his lauded Inter side lose 3-0 on aggregate to Liverpool in the first knockout round of the Champions League, that sealed his fate as Inter's coach.
There will be more about him in the coming days, I'm sure. And I'll write about it then.
6 comments:
It was smart to get rid of Hughes because he was caught out completely and utterly, anyone who failed to see his failing were clearly blinded by what success we have achieved so far.
Hughes did a great job but did not succeed the targets he accepted and agreed to achieve, sure he was let down by a few players but he also let himself down as clearly he is still in nappies in a managerial and coaching world.
We needed experience and drive in a manager and coach fast and our owner has given us the best chance.
You have to take your head out of the clouds to realise Hiddink and Mourinho are tied to contracts, thats unavailable in English.
Hughes failed in the most important area, does not have the ability or clue how to do his job when our club is put on the back foot and his tactics and squad selection was amateur at best.
I find Ian Herbert's comments amusing. Hughes developed one 'young' player, the 23 year old steven ireland who was already a regular starter. He had no interest in playing 18-21 year olds whatsoever. sturridge, gone. hart, gone, weiss, two subs appearances in 15 months.
and as for Hughes's 'tough regime', it was telling that the only truly tough action he took, dropping Rob and Ade, came when he had already lost his job.
Mancini won't get an easy ride from the press, which is fair enough. But he's got some great talents, a bucketful of charisma, and the ability to laugh at hysteria. that last one might just come in handy.
I didn't see much to support Herbert's claim that Hughes developed young players. It took months of dross from Ben Haim before Onouha got a run; he replaced Hart; Richards has gone backwards until lately; Weiss gets one substitute appearance a month and Sturridge and Evans were sold. Only Ireland has flourished.
I'm not suggesting any of these decisions were right or wrong but I can't think of a single Academy player that Hughes has introduced and given a run of games to.
Good point Wizzballs. You obviously type faster than I do.
@City Blue
I really think your missing the much bigger picture. Its not so much of whether Hughes was the right man for the job but rather the precedent that has been laid down in what was an incredibly unprofessional execution of a business decision. As ESPN City correspondent Wallace Poulter put it "Right decision, wrong time, wrongly executed."
I for one think it reflects very badly on the executive management. I can accept that ADUG have decided Hughes is not quite up to the task but to bring in a new manager in January strikes me as not only risky but foolhardy. January is an incredibly small window to bring in new blood and most international class players rarely move during this time and wholesale changes in the middle of the season does not strike me as good business sense whatsoever.
If Hughes had lost the dressing room or the if the ship was quickly sinking than you'd have a point but that is not the case. The one thing we had was time and they easily could've waited til May to execute a new plan. That they didn't should be a huge cause of concern.
As far as Mourinho and Hiddink are concerned I for one have long argued that they were never going to come here long before Hughes got the sack. Hiddink is tied at the hip to Abramovich and Mourinho demands complete autonomy with no interference or imput from the executive board.
Given how our owners have conducted themselves over past 3 weeks do you think Hiddink or Mourinho, let alone any other respectable top-shelf manager is impressed with how things are being run at the moment here at City? I for one have serious doubts.
Again I'm behind Mancini and the squad 100% but as far our owners are concerned, they have lost a good degree of my trust.
hiddink agents said he would of been interested to join in January, but city wanted someone straight away!
Post a Comment