One year on

It was one year ago today that Mark Hughes was replaced by Roberto Mancini as City manager. This is still the defining, framing event of the ADUG era and the one that tells us the most about the owners and their approach.

My reaction at the time was fairly intemperate. I described the sacking of Mark Hughes as "destructive and devious". I stick by the second word if not the first. We should certainly analyse Roberto Mancini's record over the past year, and how that reflects on ADUG's decision making, and there will be more of that later. But it's still worth, even now, reflecting that Mark Hughes was treated with contempt by the club, that leaving a condemned man out in the dock in front of 48,000 people is no way to treat something, even with a generous pay-off soon after. This is a moral stain that still lingers.

But that was only half of my critique. I didn't just say that this was a badly-executed decision, I said that it was a bad decision. Ultimately, it's on those grounds that this swap will be judged, and not on the grounds of fair play. And on this I was wrong. Because Roberto Mancini has revealed himself to be a better manager than I expected. Noticeably better, I think, than Mark Hughes.

And I feel confident saying that even in the knowledge that Mancini failed the first test he faced: he was tasked with attaining Champions League football, and he failed. He could have got us beyond the League Cup semi-final, but he didn't do that either. So why do I still like him? Well, I don't think the targets he was set were realistic. He was put in a very difficult position. Putting a new manager in charge with a squad that isn't his half way through a season just isn't a smart move: for precisely the reasons I thought it was wrong to get rid of Hughes, I think it's unfair to blame Mancini too much for our finishing fifth last year. He was dropped mid-season in a league he didn't know, with a squad that wasn't his, and asked in a half-season to improve their record. Getting to a 90-minute play-off with Spurs and losing it is no great failure on Mancini's part.

This season, though, with his own players and with some familiarity of the Premier League, you'd naturally expect more from Mancini. And that's what we've got. We're third in the league, two points off the top (five if United win their game in hand), and we won our Europa League group without really playing our best players that much. We're not Guardiola's Barcelona but after our fourth consecutive summer of overhaul one shouldn't expect us to be. Given the new players that have come in and the depth of the squad we're probably going to improve as the season progresses: so the position we are in now is a satisfactory one.

That is to say, I think Mancini is doing a good job, a better job than I expected, and a job in keeping with most realistic expectations. The most obvious improvement from Hughes is the defence. This is comfortably the most impermeable defence I've seen in my time as a City fan. The experience of going into games confident that we will not concede is novel, and one that is still being synthesised into my match-day psyche. After 38 league games in charge, Mancini's City have conceded just 31 times (0.81 goals per game). Contrast that with Hughes' tenure: 77 conceded in 55 (1.4 goals per game). Even if you ignore 2008/09 and just give Hughes time after his summer 2009 spending it's 27 from 17 - 1.59 goals per game. This is a statistically significant difference. Moreover, it's not a difference that can really be ascribed to better personnel under Mancini. Yes, Jerome Boateng and Aleksandar Kolarov have played a handful of games this season but for the most part it's been done with defenders Hughes signed, or that were here before him (Joe Hart, Micah Richards). Now, for the first time in living memory, we have one of the best defences in the country. In the time since Mancini took over, Chelsea and United have conceded 29 and 27 goals respectively, in one fewer league game. So far this season, we've got the second best record, one goal behind Chelsea, and three behind United. It's an obviously impressive record.

Of course, football, like anything else, is a trade-off. And the attacking football has not been as thrilling as it was under Hughes. Too often we have lacked ideas in the final third, and only a remarkable goal-scoring run from Carlos Tévez has kept us winning games. It's not healthy to rely so much on one player, and that reliance is why the current situation is so disconcerting. But, I do sense that this is changing. Not that we don't need our captain any more - until we get a competent replacement, we do - but that with every game he plays David Silva gets better, and that in doing so he reveals himself to be the most gifted player we've had at City in my lifetime. Not quite as effective as Tévez, yet, but his superior for technique, grace and imagination. With Tévez, the improving Silva combines magically. Without Tévez, well, Silva still manages to do well enough. There has been an improvement in our attacking as a team in recent weeks, and it's not reading too much to suggest that now that Mancini has fixed the defence he is allowing himself to be more ambitious.

Because this now feels like Mancini's team, in a powerful sense. He has been ruthless in expelling those that didn't fit in: Robinho, Stephen Ireland and Craig Bellamy, the three best players under Hughes, have all gone. Vincent Kompany and Nigel de Jong are still here, but are such obvious Mancini Lieutenants that to imply any residual loyalty to Hughes on their part is laughable. Tévez, of course, is a difficult one: Mancini's defensive move to give him the captaincy - sound logic, still - has not worked and it looks as if a summer departure is likely. But, then, this is Carlos Tévez and so I'm not sure the fall-out reflects too badly on Mancini. Putting our volatile captain to one side, there is a now a core of players at City, either signed by Mancini or recently buying into his work, talented and ambitious, of a similar generation. From front to back, Joe Hart (1987), Kolarov (1985), Zabaleta (1985), Kompany (1986), Boateng (1988), Silva (1986), James Milner (1986) and Adam Johnson (1987). These players are only going to get better and I would be surprised if, two years after Mancini's appointment, they did not still represent the core of the squad.

Some of this is irrational: The scarf, the good looks, the scrap with David Moyes. Some of this is lucky: Tévez found form, Valencia sold Silva, United, Chelsea and Arsenal all have problems, leaving us in a competitive league position. But I think there is a rational and empirical basis for believing that City are a more serious prospect than they were one year ago, and that this is largely down to the cold focus and stern judgement of the coach. I know that I overrated Hughes, and I'm loath to repeat the same mistake, so I'll try not to. Suffice to say that I think things are progressing fairly well.

More from Mancini

There's more from Roberto Mancini's Gazzetta interview beyond his admission of a 'con le palle' confrontation with Tévez.

First this, on tactics:

This system, he said, would change shortly. "It's out of necessity. [Emmanual] Adebayor has just recovered from injury, [Mario] Balotelli not so. Without flying full backs like [Jérôme] Boateng and [Aleksandar] Kolarov, who can push forward, I've had to adjust the team to get results and stay in touch with the leaders. But only until everyone is back and fit."

I take his point. Injuries have forced us towards 4-5-1, and the absence of our first choice full-backs has been a particular blow. (No one we've used at full-back this season has been of the level of Kolarov or Boateng, and some of the time we've been playing with centre-backs at full-back instead.) When we have those two back, plus the option of Adebayor alongside Tévez or Balotelli from wide, we'll be better.

That said, one could just as easily argue that those limitations mean we should try to maximise creativity where possible. I would certainly claim that in the absence of attacking full-backs or a partner for Tévez it makes more sense, not less, to play all three attacking midfielders (Adam Johnson, James Milner and David Silva) and two of the cautious options. Aces full of grunts, as it were, makes more sense when there's no Kolarov, Balotelli or Boateng than it does when they're all available. It's when Kolarov and Boateng are galloping up and down the flanks that we'll really need Nigel de Jong and Gareth Barry to fill in the gaps.

Anyway, Mancini then went on talk about Adam Johnson:

"Adam is young, but he has got what it takes. He just needs to understand it is not enough to dribble past an opponent six times to feel entitled to think he reached the top. You need to dribble but you also need a cutting shot like the goal against Juve [in the Europa League], or the 2-1 win against Newcastle. If I didn't believe in Adam's potential I would not work him like this."

I do like that last line. The distant fear, for me, is that he'll get so frustrated by the bench that he'll storm off to Villa or Spurs. Obviously I'm being silly and this is miles beyond the horizon. But I'm keen that this is more of a Ferguson/Giggs relationship than, say, a Mourinho/Balotelli one.

And on the merits of the issue Mancini is correct. Johnson does need to add shooting to his dribbling skills. Given he doesn't really cross that well, his running at defenders is only valuable if he can score (or 'win' a penalty, which he is very adept at doing.) Up until last week, he'd scored one goal for City and won three penalties. That ratio is now up to three and three, after his goals against Juventus and Newcastle. Maybe he's learning from the criticism. But he's certainly moving in the direction Mancini wants him to, which is good for the both of them and good for all of us.

'Now and then a good shake-up is healthy'

Roberto Mancini has been speaking in Italy about his recent much-publicised falling out with Carlos Tévez:

"What happened in our dressing room happens in others as well. And when it matters it is good that it happens. Against Newcastle we had gone to sleep in the first half, so the confrontation with Tevez was exactly the alarm call everybody needed.

"The confrontation with Tevez was really ballsy. And in the second half City deservedly won. The alarm call worked well. We [Mancini and Tevez] sorted everything between us before the restart. And when I took him off at the end we shook hands again. Now and then a good shake-up is healthy."

I didn't write about this when the reports first came out, because I didn't really know what to make of it. I suspected, though, that it was less surprising, and less problematic than people presumed. As Ryan Giggs suggested in his interview with Simon Hattenstone this week, it is the reporting, not the existence, of these events that is noteworthy.

Roberto Mancini and Carlos Tévez are both notorious for their tempers. Given how poorly we played in the first half I would be disappointed if there had not been tension and discord at half-time. Tévez was appointed captain to channel his inner magma as constructively as possible, and this sounds like a vindication of that approach. As Paul Wilson writes on Guardian.co.uk today:

Be that as it may, the main reason City should take a relaxed view of tempers snapping in the dressing room is that it shows the club cares. Plenty of people maintain the only thing that matters to City's expensively assembled squad is the bottom line on the wage slip, but when members of a team are falling out among themselves at the same time as they are climbing to second in the Premier League it tells you that ambition has finally arrived at Eastlands. The real thing, not just the easy soundbite. The captain falling out with the manager over tactics should not be mistaken for just the latest bit of slapstick in the endless City comedy show, this is the development that shows how much has changed at the club.

Samuel / Mancini

There's a good interview in today's Daily Mail of Roberto Mancini, conducted by Martin Samuel. (Samuel did a similarly good one of Mark Hughes in roughly January 2009.) He comes across as determined and ruthless, which isn't exactly news, but there's some interesting stuff in there too.

He talks about the attraction of City being the chance to turn an unsuccessful club into a successful one, which offers a different sort of appeal from maintaining the status of an already dominant club:

'That is why I liked Manchester City. It is like Sampdoria: if we are successful, we change the history of this club and we change it for life. This is our moment. When people ask why do I come here, I tell them it is because Manchester City never win.

'For me, that is the best challenge. Inter Milan were a top team but they had not won the league for a long time; Lazio the same; Fiorentina the same; Sampdoria never win.

'These are good challenges because when you work for Real Madrid or Barcelona it is easy; all managers win at those clubs. But if you build a squad, work very hard for months and years at Manchester City and then you win, for me that would be more important. That would be fantastic.'

This is something that some of our new players spoke of on joining. Carlos Tévez has mentioned it too. (I can't find links right now but will try to rectify this later today). Of course for players that join for the money this is an effective cover story. But I don't think it's entirely artificial either. Mancini then goes into the importance of a 'winning mentality' at City, which we've heard of incessantly over the last few years. (Can't we just buy one?):

'There are players whose only target is their day off and that is a big problem. You must replace them with those whose target is the win against Chelsea, then against Arsenal, then against Manchester United, who will work every day for this. Yes, there is still the day off, but you must never lose your focus even then.

'Before, at this club, there were players whose targets were wrong, but that mentality is changing. Those whose targets were wrong are the ones who have left. I tell them there is no day off now. The top players will play Saturday in the Premier League, Tuesday in the Champions League, Saturday in the Premier League; it is impossible to rest. Yes, there is one day you can use to recover, to have a massage, but your head must always be on the pitch and on your job...

'At some clubs you do not have to change mentality,' explained Mancini.

'For Carlo Ancelotti at Chelsea it was already there.'

Generating a winning mentality seems to be the alchemist's trick in Premier League football. Sir Alex Ferguson has spent almost a quarter-century nurturing one at United, José Mourinho imposed one through force of will, Arsenal had it but appear to have let it slip. I don't think we have it yet but I do think that we're moving in the right direction, and that Mancini has the right idea. I certainly support him in his attempts to cajole and bully the players in the right direction.

There's more interesting stuff there, including his relationships with Adebayor, Shay Given, Mario Balotelli and even the line that Adam Johnson could 'change his mentality to improve', which I think isn't quite as surprising as it might be. The whole thing is certainly a good Friday afternoon read.

Lombardo joins the staff

Another addition to the coaching staff at City, and another member of that early 1990s Sampdoria side: Attilio Lombardo.

It's perfectly understandable that Roberto Mancini would seek to bring in those he knows and trusts to work for him. Lombardo and Platt combine that relationship with Mancini with an understanding of the English game (of obviously varying degrees) and thus are perfect fits.

This does strengthen my belief that Brian Kidd is being marginalised at the club. Don't forget that the Mancini/Kidd partnership was created by Garry Cook and Brian Marwood in the chaos of last Christmas, and that Mancini had since brought in five of his own men: Fausto Salsano, Ivan Carminati and Massimo Battara last December, with David Platt and Attilio Lombardo.

I'm not predicting Kidd is soon to be sacked, but there is a finite number of tasks and a finite amount of authority in managing and coaching a football team, and every new addition must necessarily detract from Kidd's power base.

Just a thought.

Vieira quits France

Patrick Vieira has announced he's quitting international football to focus on City:

"My focus is on City, nothing else...

He said: "My target in the next few years is City. I want to do my best for the club, and I want to repay the trust of the manager, Brian (Marwood) and Garry Cook."

This isn't a big surprise given his age and the break Laurent Blanc needs to make with the last remnants of the France '98/Euro 2000 generation.

What is interesting is that he says he wants to be here for a 'few years.' This reinforces my belief that Vieira is going to move into the coaching staff providing Mancini is still here. Clearly his role at the club is beyond playing in midfield occasionally: based on last year's performances he didn't deserve a contact for 2010/11. The longer he stays the more likely it is he will be performing training ground functions. And he's a very useful ally for Mancini in the dressing room - as shown by his castigation of Micah Richards as reported in the Sunday Times a few days ago.

The appointment of David Platt shows Mancini's willingness to build his own coaching team: his partnership with Brian Kidd was created by the club rather than the manager. Vieira could make a step up into the Mancini/Platt circle in time.

Ireland's future

Mancini has said that Stephen Ireland can still have a future at City if his focus is correct:

He [Ireland] has also had a separate meeting with Mancini and his representatives will be having talks with the chief executive, Garry Cook, this week before deciding whether to put in an official transfer request.

"I spoke to Stephen two weeks ago but we must speak again soon," said Mancini, who flew today to Abu Dhabi for his end-of-season debrief with the City chairman, Khaldoon al-Mubarak. "I don't know what he is thinking about his future but, for me, Stephen is a fantastic player and if he can change his head I think he can start to play like last season [2008-09] again."

I'm sure he is right. One of the many disappointing aspects of Ireland's season is that we often make a presumption that a young player's progress is bankable - that a good season or spell means the establishment of a new base-line from which he can advance. This season just gone shows that this is not true; Ireland has regressed to his Pearce/Eriksson form - talented but patchy, prone to letting the game pass him by and clearly at the mercy of his own confidence-swings. We know what he is capable of but it will take a lot of work from all sides to bring it out of him again in 2010/11.

Mancini to stay

Confirmation from Khaldoon al Mubarak in an interview he gave today:

"Roberto's going to do a wonderful job for us for many years," Mubarak told Manchester City's official website.

"Roberto is our manager. He's done an excellent job coming in mid-season, organising the team. I'm very happy, and [owner] Sheikh Mansour's delighted with the way he's organised the team."

Mubarak added: "We believe he is definitely the right manager for this club for many years. What he needs this summer is time to prepare and really organise ourselves.

It's a relief to hear this. This has been the fourth consecutive season when, going into the final corner, there have been serious doubts over the manager's position. Stuart Pearce and Sven-Goran Eriksson were sacked at the end of the 2006/07 and 2007/08 seasons respectively, while Hughes and Mancini have survived.

Interestingly enough, the circumstances are almost identical to the confirmation Hughes' position last year. It came after a narrow loss to Spurs, again the penultimate game of the season as City missed out on the European competition we were aiming to qualify for. There was some uncertainty over the future but the day after the game Khaldoon came out and said Hughes was staying. And you know the rest.

Now, I'm not saying that Khaldoon is definitely going to lose faith in Mancini after a string of draws in the autumn, or that Mancio is definitely going to get sacked after a pathetic surrender at White Hart Lane and a mad, pressure-free 4-3 defeat of Sunderland, but, well, it's possible.

What it all means

So what does our failure to get fourth mean for the future of Mancini? In the most basic sense he has failed: he was brought in to get Champions League football, on the basis that Mark Hughes 'results trajectory' was not good enough. But does this mean that the break clause in his contract should be activated, that we should bring in our fifth manager in five years to refashion the squad for next year's challenge?

No chance. This was a point I kept on making during the disputes over Mark Hughes' management, but it clearly needs restating: maintaining or sacking a manager should not be a reward for success or a punishment for failure. Rather, it should be based on a judgement of who is best equipped to take the club forward. Sacking Mancini might make the board feel authoritative but if we couldn't find a better replacement it would be damaging. Surveying the options, there is one manager who most blues would willingly sack Mancini for. But I can't see José Mourinho choosing to take over a Europa League side for next season.

Any judgement on the medium term interests of MCFC must factor in the importance of stability, the destructive impact of any further upheaval and associated teething problems, and the importance of a coach like Mancini who has experience winning trophies as well as some acquaintance with the playing staff and infrastructure of MCFC.

(One problem we have in assessing Mancini is that to date he has been essentially doing the job of an international manager: organising and motivating a set of players that he has no real ownership of. We haven't learnt yet how good he is at building a squad; signing the right players, getting them to gel, cutting out those that don't fit. This is at least as much a part of top-level club management as the organisational stuff - it's what makes Arsène Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson as brilliant as they are - and we don't know if it's Mancini's forte or not.)

Which is a rather messy way of saying that there are arguments for the retention of Mancini beyond his record so far. Not just because these decisions should be forward-looking, but also because his record only reflects one element of a club manager's skill-set. On the presumption that Mourinho won't join, there is no manager we could bring to City this summer who would be a sufficient improvement on Mancini to justify the turmoil and upheaval inherent in their introduction. Roberto might not be perfect but we must stick with him for next season.

'If he's not happy, it would be better to change'

Today's papers are full of Roberto Mancini's surprising decision to speak publicly about Carlos Tévez's discontent:

Asked if he thought Tevez might be unhappy, Mancini replied: "I don't know. Tevez has four years left on his contract. But I don't know. If he's not happy, it would be better [for him] to change squads. If a top player is not happy to stay here, then it's better for him to go to another team...

"I've spoken to Tevez. What we said was private but I did remind him that there had been only one time when he had to train twice in a day.We have trained twice four times in the five months I have been here. On two of those times Carlos was in Argentina and one time he was here but didn't train. So I don't know why [he's unhappy]. When we don't have a midweek game I always train two times on Tuesday because it's the only way I know."

It's a surprise and a disappointment to see this bubbling up into the public sphere. I had hoped that Tévez's infamous Daily Mail interview was an aberration, a mistake, but it looks as if Tévez was being honest - he does seem to dislike Mancini's methods which, from the perspective of an outsider like me, do not sound too unreasonable. But then we cannot get too precious about the fact that Tévez is a prickly character. If he wasn't bolshie, stubborn and pointedly candid he would still be a very effective squad player at Manchester United. It's those qualities which drove him to City and so the fact that they still make up a big part of Tévez's character should not be a surprise.

But this reveals more about Mancini than it does about Tévez. The fact that Mancini has gone public with this, and put down our star man and Player of the Season-elect is important. I think it's the latest data point in a recent trend: Mancini's desire to cultivate and project managerial authority. With the exception of cash, managerial authority is the most important currency at any football club. It's a necessary part of any successful team. We certainly won't win anything without it. And Mancini arrived with none at all.

He was brought in to replace a popular manager, who had bought almost every member of the squad. He had no time to bring in his own players, and when he did only signed Patrick Vieira. He was likely to leave in the summer if we failed to come fourth, an open secret in football. It's hard to come up with a set of circumstances less conducive to an authoritative manager. And Mancini knew this. He also knew that if he was to have any success at City he would have to fight it, and show that he was boss. Hence the famous substitution of Robinho at Goodison, and shipping him back to Santos. Hence ordering Tévez home from Buenos Aires. Hence telling Wright-Phillips to keep quiet about his contract. Hence (temporarily) dropping Kolo Touré. Hence falling out with Craig Bellamy.

It might be ugly, and it might even cost us a good player or two, but Mancini has to show that he is in charge. Mark Hughes went through precisely the same process eighteen months ago, I called it 'Sparkyisation.' And I'm entirely supportive of it. We can't expect to do anything without a clear sense of managerial authority. Unfortunately, we're not a club that is well geared to that. With our demanding owners, our public and influential CEO and Football Administration Officer, our big stars on big contracts we have serious obstacles in the way. Cultivating managerial authority at City isn't easy. But someone's got to do it. Mancini's approach is absolutely necessary.

Rumoured clear-out

For all the attention on the chase for fourth, rumour clouds are beginning to form regarding this summer. The details are unclear but we all know there is going to be wrenching upheaval at MCFC this summer: players, managers, coaches, captains - no-one is safe.

Today's report from Neil Custis in The Sun gives four names of possible casualties should Roberto Mancini remain in charge; Emmanuel Adebayor, Stephen Ireland, Shaun Wright-Phillips and Stephen Ireland Wayne Bridge.

It smells of plausibility. It is easy to denigrate the reliability of tabloid reports but Neil Custis was ahead of the curve on these two MCFC transfer stories before.

I can certainly see Mancini seeking to shed all four of those players from the squad. Ireland, Wright-Phillips and Bridge have all had very patchy seasons, and there are questions over the ability of all three to compete in the Champions League. Adebayor might feel unfairly done by - 13 in 22 in the EPL is a decent return, given everything - but there are grounds for his replacement; namely that Carlos Tévez is our best player and we should find a more natural partner for him than the free-spirited and fairly casual Adebayor. This could be Fernando Torres, but it wouldn't have to be - there are others who could do that job well.

On an emotional level I would be devastated to see Stephen Ireland leave, because I love him and am desperate for him to succeed at City. But Mancini has clearly seen what Mark Hughes came to recognise - that Ireland needs a side built round him, and that a team chasing honours cannot always afford that. I am fond of Shaun Wright-Phillips, too, for obvious reasons. But I have little to no emotional attachment to Bridge and Adebayor, beyond gratitude and respect for continuing to play well despite difficult (but very different) personal circumstances that they have endured this season.

Of course, this whole report is premised on the idea that Roberto Mancini will be manager throughout the summer. This can't be guaranteed. So let's wait and see who's boss next year before going any further with this.

Mancini on transfer policy

Amongst his discussion of Fernando Torres, Mancini has shed more light on our transfer policy for the summer:

"I think we must buy a top player," he said. "We must make sure we don't spend too much on normal [average] players but if there is the possibility to spend the money on top players, young players who can help us build a future, I think it is OK.

"If we want to win the Premier League ahead of Chelsea and Manchester United we must sign some important players. All the top players want to play in the Champions League. But next season I want to win the Premier League; this is my desire even ahead of the Champions League, and I want players to understand that Manchester City are an important project for the future and that they can come here – [and] not only if we get fourth position."

I like the idea of buying three or four top quality players. I don't think our squad needs an overhaul, and I don't want to go through the disconcerting process of getting to know and love a whole new set of players. Champions League or not I think we need a goal-scoring midfielder, at least one full-back, maybe a better partner for Carlitos and maybe another centre-half. I'd rather go with four or five players than the seven or eight we bought in the summers of 2007 and 2009.

But it's also interesting to note 'young players who can help us build a future.' This is something I completely agree with. The last thing I want is for us to think we need Champions League experience and so to bring in Ronaldinho, Luca Toni and Ludo Giuly. I think we should follow the pattern of Chelsea from 2004 - when they signed Petr Cech, Arjen Robben, Joe Cole, Didier Drogba and so forth - all young hungry players, from UEFA Cup-level clubs and all with something to prove. And one of the reasons Jérôme Boateng feels like a smart buy is that he entirely fits this bill.

The thing is, I'm not sure that these two parts of the Mancini plan fit together. We could buy a handful of world class players. Or we could buy young and hungry players. But we'll struggle to do both. I mean, is Jérôme Boateng a world class defender? Is he going to add rare quality? Probably not, but he's ambitious and wants to win things at City. Fernando Torres is brilliant, but at 26 he' s not young. So the manager seems to be proposing two strategies which might have some overlap (Ángel Di María? Marek Hamšík?) but are fundamentally different. My favourite? The Boateng strategy, rather than the Torres strategy. It's more realistic and more sustainable.

More on Torres

Roberto Mancini's Thursday press briefing clearly shed more light on our planned summer move for Fernando Torres than first thought:

"We are a top team and I think all the top teams are interested in Torres but sometimes it depends on the player because they want to play in the Champions League," he said. "If we don't get into the fourth position I think it will be difficult."

Explaining his reasons for identifying Torres, Mancini said: "For me, he is with Carlos [Tevez], [Wayne] Rooney, [Lionel] Messi, [Zlatan] Ibrahimovic, [Cristiano] Ronaldo as the best in Europe. Fernando is a fantastic striker; all the teams in Europe would like him"...

Asked if City had an advantage over Torres's other suitors, Mancini replied. "Probably."

Well it's absolutely clear that, if we get into the Champions League, this is Target Number 1. It's worth repeating that if we don't finish fourth then all bets are off, and we can talk about our moves for whichever strikers have managed seventeen or eighteen goals in Serie A or Ligue 1. But while we're still in the hunt this remains live. And an interesting feature of the reports in Friday's newspapers is that they all carry what looks like briefed information from the club on Torres' interest:

When City looked into his potential availability last summer the message from Torres's representatives was that the Spain international was not interested. That, however, changed to a "maybe" when the same calls were made in January and senior officials from Eastlands have been back in touch over the past fortnight.

Of course the move really hinges on Torres' enthusiasm. There's no doubt that if Torres wanted to move that we could agree a fee with Liverpool. So if the club hears from Torres' camp of a flicker of interest then that's good news. But our failed moves for Kaká, Samuel Eto'o and John Terry presumably all started with those players' agents telling Garry Cook that they might be interested, and in fact were sustained by further promises of interest.

If I had to make a prediction now I'd say that we won't get fourth so this will all go away. But if we do, I still can't see Torres joining us. I think his loyalty to Liverpool is too strong. I'd love to be proved wrong. But we'll see.

Hiddink talks of MCFC interest

It's no secret that last December, when considering sacking Mark Hughes, we approached Guus Hiddink to discuss taking over. The story was run in the Daily Telegraph at the time, and made some waves. Yesterday Guus Hiddink spoke publicly about our interest in him for the first time:

"We didn't have talks but I knew there was some interest," said Hiddink.

"It's a big club, a club with history, also a club with money," said Hiddink, who has also worked at PSV Eindhoven, Real Madrid and Fenerbahce.

"It was a difficult decision because I had the experience of (working) more (with) clubs and I had the experience, of course, last year with Chelsea, which I enjoyed very much."

Interesting stuff. All it does is confirm something that existed as rumour before. But it does underline that the decision to sack Hughes was taken independently of that to pick Roberto Mancini, and that Mancini was not necessarily first choice. Which itself demonstrates just how important the board saw finishing fourth this season as in terms of the club's long term progress.

Mancini/Hart talks planned

Aside from the future of Roberto Mancini himself, the question over the future of Joe Hart looms larger over the club than any other issue this summer. I had always presumed that Hart would stay at Birmingham City for 2010/11 but it seems increasingly likely that he will return to City, due to Mancini's comments today:

“We have a very good goalkeeper at the club in Shay Given. Shay and Joe Hart are two of the best in the Premier League, and it is important to have two good goalkeepers.

“The Premier League season is long, and if you are playing in the Champions League, as well as the FA Cup and the League Cup, then you need the players - you need two top goalkeepers.

“It is important that I speak with Joe in the weeks after the Premier League finishes, then we will see about next season. He has worked very well at Birmingham and he has developed."

This sounds clear: Joe Hart will come back to City next season to compete for a place with Given. I think this is probably the right move at the wrong time. Like most City fans, I like the idea of Joe Hart becoming our Number 1 at some point again in the future. But I don't see any value in his stagnating in our reserves. As good a season as he has had at St. Andrew's he is not yet a credible alternative to Given. Maybe with another season of Premier League experience he will be. Time is on our side here - Hart signed a five year deal three months before we bought Given, and so we've got him until the end of 2012/13.

It's quite possible that by the summer of 2011 or 2012 he will be as good a keeper as Shay Given, or at least the gap will be sufficiently narrow that it will be worth sticking with the man in his mid 20s rather than his mid 30s. But I don't think we're at that point yet. And I think that a season on our bench - rather than in the Birmingham City first team - will decrease the possibility of his reaching that point during his current City deal. If we want to keep him in the long term - and I really do - we should let him stay away next season.

Understatement of the year

The prestigious award goes to Roberto Mancini for this:

"Patrick could improve."

Kolo backs Mancini

The captain backs the manager:

“It's really difficult to beat us and what he (Mancini) brings is that every time we play, we feel really strong," he said.

"He's bringing experience and he knows what he wants to do for this club and he needs time.

“You can't keep changing managers. Every time the players have to adapt to a new strategy and the thinking of the new manager, which is really difficult and takes time.

"With Roberto we're starting to know what he really wants and he's working well.”

I think people underestimate the difficulties involved with managerial changes and associated teething issues. The prospect of going through it all again this summer - which is quite possible, is more wearying than exciting.

Mancini charged

Charged with improper conduct.

No surprise, really.

Players back Mancini

Well, two of them have - former Hughes loyalists Nigel de Jong and Vincent Kompany have defended Mancini after Wednesday's evening's unpleasantness:

"Everyone at this club is passionate and wants to bring success so there will be times when emotion takes over," said Kompany.

"The boss showed how much he cares and I don't see a problem with what he did.

"We were losing and he wanted to get the ball back in play - that was all there was to it. I think too much has been made of it already."

Nigel de Jong, as usual, agreed with his former HSV teammate:

"It was a very emotional game, you could see that at the end with the gaffer," he said.

"Everybody knows I am not the easiest player in these kind of games.

"You have to set a tone - you are 1-0 behind and if the referee continues making disappointing decisions you know it is going to be an emotional game."

It seems that not all Hughes loyalists were singing from exactly the same hymn-sheet though.

Managers, tactics and traditions

For some time I've been meaning to write about the legitimacy of style-based criticisms of Roberto Mancini. I was preparing to do so after the Chelsea game, anticipating a fairly inspid 1-0 or 2-0 defeat. Things went fairly off-script that day, though, and so discussing criticisms of Mancini felt rather inappropriate.

But this week two genuine City legends have given authoritative voice to what are growing murmurs in the stands, the pubs and the message-boards: are Roberto Mancini's tactics too cautious, too joyless - and if so, are they at odds with the traditions of the club? First it was Peter Barnes speaking out:

"I'd love to see, and I'm sure City fans would agree, a 4-4-2 with Adam Johnson on the left, Shaun Wright-Phillips on the right, and Carlos Tevez and Craig Bellamy together up front," said Barnes.

"The more attacking talent you have out there the better, for me, and those four going at teams with pace and skill is a frightening prospect for any opposition.

"Stick two from Gareth Barry, Nigel de Jong and Stevie Ireland in the centre, and that is your six to try to grab that final Champions League place."

And today we have heard from Colin Bell:

"It frustrates me," said Bell. "I don't know if it's because he's a foreign manager, and it's the system he has played for years.

"Under Malcolm Allison and Joe Mercer, the theme was always that we were better than the opposition, so just go out and score more than them.

"We never laid our stall out for a draw. They had us believing that every game in which we turned out, we could win.

"If you aim for a win, a draw is acceptable. But if you aim for a draw, the only other result is a loss."

The content of these criticisms will be familiar to all City fans. Things are, without doubt, much more cautious under Mancini. Three defensive midfielders is the norm, as is the deployment of a cautious option - Pablo Zabaleta, Sylvinho, Gareth Barry - in wide-midfield. The full backs are much less buccaneering than they were under Mark Hughes, as are the whole midfield. All tactical systems are balances between defensive solidity and attacking fluidity, and Mancini has very clearly and honestly traded one off against the other. And he's probably right to do so, after the cavalier catastrophes of autumn 2009. (I mean, 3-3 against Burnley, at home! 3-3 at the Reebok! Blowing a 2-0 home lead against Fulham, and almost doing the same against Sunderland.) I think there's a broad consensus here.

The question, though, is whether there's anything particularly wrong with this. Does a defensive approach make for joyless football? And, even more importantly, does this fit with the traditions of Manchester City? Because the only reason I'm writing this today is because of the comments of Colin Bell and Peter Barnes, two players who understand as much as any others what City fans expect from their teams. I hope I'm not making any claims above our station here. I'm not saying that City are on a par with Barcelona or Ajax or Holland or Brazil, I'm not saying that our football is meant to be shimmeringly beautiful, or jaw-droppingly inventive ('Revie Plan' aside), but it is meant to be entertaining.

At the very least, you expect bodies to be thrown forward, and creative players to be given license. Since I've been a fan, I've been lucky enough to see Georgi Kinkladze, Paulo Wanchope, Ali Benarbia, Eyal Berkovic, Elano and Robinho in blue. Given that we've finished in the top half of the top flight three or four times in fifteen years that's a fairly impressive bunch. The non-performances of the Brazilians under Hughes was certainly frustrating (and I was pro-Hughes, rather than pro-Elano), and those results I mentioned above were infuriating, but I think one can legitimately argue that in his commitment to attacking football, and exciting players, Hughes was operating in the finest traditions of MCFC.

But this is where it gets really tricky: Mancini's catenaccio might just get us into the Champions League. We're probably very marginal favourites, given that Villa and Everton have still got to come to Eastlands. And Hughes' 4-2-4 was taking us to fifth or sixth at best. While nothing is guaranteed it is probably correct to say that by jettisoning the traditions of creativity and unpredictability, Mancini is increasing our chances of success. If we make it into fourth it will be our first time in Europe's elite competition since 1969. But if it's not done in the style of Joe Mercer's side, will it mean less?