“The City side lacks a real leader to
take this side forward. If City’s owners seriously wish their club to progress
past the group stages and challenge for European trophies then they need to
move on from Roberto Mancini and bring in a man capable of managing, organising
and succeeding with world class players.” The Whitehouse Address Nov 2012
Surely no-one can be surprised? It was coming even last
season, the signs were there, the threat of losing his job if the title wasn’t
won, links with Monaco, the poor summer of transfers, the suits from Barcelona
arriving. The writing was on the wall all year long and yet still many City
fans refused to believe their owners were like the rest of the oligarchs. Did they
not learn from the sacking of Mark Hughes?
Yet just like Mancini furthered the team and brought success
after Hughes, the hope is that the next manager will continue and further the work of the
Italian coach. This is what modern football is. And as The Whitehouse Address
argues, Mancini will leave a legacy at Man City and will be remembered as the
catalyst for their undoubtedly successful future.
When Roberto Mancini took over the management of Manchester
City, he knew the ambitions that the club had. He knew what would be expected
of him and thus knew that he would be under enormous pressure to succeed.
Under Sheikh Mansour the intention
was clear, he wanted to take Man City to the top of world football. In
a matter of years Man City were transformed from a mid table Premier League
side to potentially one of the most feared in Europe. The club did what some sides take
decades to do (yet with an investment of almost £1 billion their rise is not
all that surprising). Call it financial doping if you will, yet the truth is
that City are now one of the elite of Europe and their manager must be judged on this.
Champions League woe
Last July I
wrote “I believe Mancini will be
found out again, as a tactically inept, hot headed manager who lacks the skills
and ability to create a world class team and to be a world class coach.
Champions League performance is where Mancini should be judged and is where he
will come up short.”
One cannot deny and ignore that he has brought success to
City yet winning the league last year was the jut start of their
ambitions, it was a sign that this side was legitimate yet it was Europe where City and Mancini needed to make an impression.
Mancini's prior experiences of European football had seen
him being found short on too many occasions. Many tried to deny or ignore it yet there was a serious concern regarding his tactical skills and ability on the biggest stage and last season the excuse for City's poor European performance
was that they were “inexperienced”. This season has confirmed the doubts, this
campaign has seen an ever poorer performance from the manager and his side and
the questions have been answered; Mancini is not good enough to manage a side
with aspirations to succeed in Europe.
Mancini once again highlighted his lack of tactical ability and importantly decision making in terms of personnel and positons. Europe is their benchmark and it is here where he should be judged. In Europe you are pitted against some of the world’s best players and coaches. A manager like Mancini should therefore be judged in how he compares with Mourinho and Klopp, not Paul Lambert or Tony Pulis.
For me City have gone backwards this season. They appear
less of a team, less organised and focused. Mancini’s tinkering is certainly
hampering the side. His attitude off the pitch also is causing problems, he
continues to moan and complain about his side and this is clearly affecting the
side.
A league campaign which never really saw City hit their
levels of last season and another failed Champions League campaign all pointed
to the end of his time at City.
The verdict,
unanimously is he that he has failed. He has failed to build an organised,
tactically strong cohesive side built for success in Europe. Madrid, Dortmund
and Ajax found holes and flaws in City’s armoury, armoury which has cost
more than all those sides. It shows that money is not everything, as Dortmund
and Ajax have proven.
Why has Klopp managed to put together a winning team and Mancini cannot?
Because simply great man management, great tactical understanding and the ability to build a cohesive team is where Mancini has been found lacking.
Mancini should also be blamed for the sides shaky and nervous start. Firstly, the decision to alter formations between a 3-5-2, 4-4-2 and the winning 4-2-3-1 from last year appears in part tinkering from Mancini and perhaps a slight of worry to adapt and evolve from last season. The problem has been that City have not performed well when asked to do implement these different tactics. In all honesty, with the quality City possess in all positions, the 4-2-3-1 was and is the ideal formation for City to bring out the best of their players.
I said before that Mancini was not good enough for European
football, once again I have been vindicated.
A failed summer
Yes it was a difficult summer for Mancini. His desire to
improve the squad was thwarted when Eden Hazard, Robin Van Persie and Danielle
De Rossi all rejected moving to the Etihad. Instead Mancini added Javi Garcia,
Scott Sinclair, Jack Rodwell and Maicon and Nastastic to the team.
Underwhelming? Slightly.
City still needed to improve
the squad to be a genuine force in Europe. A world class defensive
midfielder was needed to partner
Yaya Toure and replace Gareth Barry. Javi Martinez has proven how valuable he could have been. And his ability to play in both defence and midfield would have been invaluable for City.
City did not add any “world class”
players to their side, which must have surely been the intention. When Aguero
signed last year, one just knew City had signed a player capable of winning the
title for this side. Another name like that this summer would have shown the
clubs intent to build on last season. Instead their signings do not appear
to indicate this.
However by all accounts City’s management were not keen on spending
huge sums again this summer. It has been reported that Mancini's condemnation of Marwood was viewed within the club as pointed criticism of the move towards a more prudent approach in the transfer market. According to reports the criticism irritated senior figures in the club. For the club's owners, the money spent getting City into the position they are in now was necessary, yet will not be matched again.
A belief that the club should be spending more
sustainably was found to be the future of the club's vision. In many ways this
undermined Mancini. However, to give Mancini this as an excuse for his sides
poor performances in Europe is not going to happen. With the quality that City
possess, their performances in Europe have been nothing short of embarrassing.
The Barcelona model
The poor summer and the arrival of Soriano and Begiristain has destabilised Mancini's position. The ex-Barcelona directors are now charged with realising the vision of
Sheikh Mansour; which demands top-quality home-grown players and the
recruitment of the best global talent.
Mancini's future at City rested on his ability to forge a working relationship with Begiristain and Soriano. Yet as
the club aimed for a more sustainable future, one wonders if Mancini
appears willing and able to adapt.
Throughout the season Mancini appeared more and more to be a man becoming isolated and ostracised by
the owners and their vision for the club. His saving grace last season was that
he managed to win the title, which got him a new contract. However, this season
has seen abject performances and more concern over his ability in Europe.
The new changes at City undermined Mancini and the
signs pointed to a change in the managers seat all year long. It was evident that Mancini was a dead man
walking. Yet a handsome £25m pay off is not a bad leaving gift.
The truth is that the future for City is bigger than the manager, the
foundations are being laid, the academy is built and ready to develop some of
the world's best. Now the men who made Barcelona are now given the remit to
build a dynasty at City. The long term future is very bright for the club and
fans, it is understandable that they find the sacking of Mancini harsh yet they need to understand that City's owners have very high ambitions and Mancini simply was not the man to achieve them.
You can’t fault his
achievements
Now I have been a harsh critic of Mancini and his coaching
staff this past 12 months. My view is that
he is a good but not great coach and has being found out when encountering some
of Europe’s best sides. Now of course it is easy to criticise Mancini and
believe he has done a ‘poor’ job yet the truth is that his situation at Man
City is perhaps one of the most difficult in European football.
To compare Man City to United, Real Madrid, Barcelona or Bayern Munich makes no sense. It was only a few years ago when City were in division three. Their meteoric rise has being so quick and so frantic that the club really has attempted to achieve a decades worth of growth in a matter of years. Mancini therefore has been judged on levels and expectations which really are not realistic or fair.
In fact Man City shares more similarities with Paris Saint Germain
than any other team. Why? Because they are both ran by oil rich owners who have
little knowledge of football. Their intentions are to make their team the
greatest in the world. Their most striking similarity is that both teams
have very little history. They are not one of Europe’s ‘elite’ yet they aspire
to take themselves there. Therefore both sides are relatively new to this world. Thus to be asked to produce a world class elite team in three years is near lunacy.
Even comparisons to Chelsea are difficult and somewhat
incorrect. Yes Chelsea’s success has been built on the wealth and investment of
Roman Abramovich yet this was a team who had qualified for the Champions League
before the Russian invested. By this I mean they were already on their way up
the league and the investment nudged them to those elite levels quicker.
City however were nowhere the 'elite' before Mansour can in and started
offering lavish transfers and wages. It has been a matter of building their foundations while acting like they are‘elite’.
Now don’t get me wrong, if you spend that much money on
players and wages then you should really be winning trophies and arguably doing
better in Europe. And Mancini has been found out on the big stage. However he has laid the foundations for a successful future for City and put them on the road for a potential decade of dominance.
Personally I do not condone this style of management and
spending which City have done, like Wenger says it is paramount to “financial doping” is not far off and I believe the
amount of players who are being paid such ridiculous wages and either
languishing in the reserves or being shipped out on loan is truly deplorable.
Yet without vast money spent City would not be able to compete with Europe's elite.
A change will do you good
Many of City’s fan looks across to their neighbours and
appear jealous of the stability that Ferguson’s reign has brought. Yet Man City
will never be a Man United, very few teams are. Most of Europe’s top sides
change their managers on a regular basis, not many coaches stay longer than three seasons.
Often it is because the managers ideas have lost their
effect and success has not come or the owners believe a change is necessary.
You only to have look at Bayern and see what changing the coach can do for a
teams evolution; Van Gaal, Heynckes and now Guardiola will offer the team new
ideas which has been shown to bring success. Compare Bayern to the lack of
change and staleness at Arsenal and you see the value of changing manager, as
long as the decision is seen as an evolution and not a revolution.
Mancini improved City’s defensive structure after Hughes
which brought great success for the club. And while at Inter Mancini himself
was replaced by Mourinho who took his team further. This is football and
although the career of Ferguson is truly astounding no other club should use
this a blueprint.
Changing the coach is part of football and with two Spainards
in charge of the decision making they will bring that mentality of changing the
coach to City. Continuity of a philosophy with a new coach to instil new ideas and drive to the team is what most of Europe's top teams aim to achieve.
By sacking Mancini City's owners are proving to their fans serious they are serious about making City one of the world's best teams. They should be commended not vilified for seeking a manager who understands European football and who has the ability to build a strong team. Mancini was the problem, a better manager is the solution.
City’s owners consider Mancini’s unable to take the club further, yet you can
rest assured they will value what he has done and will ask the new coach to
further what Mancini has laid down. It should not be seen as failure but more akin to evolution. After all this is modern football and if you stand still in this game you will probably be left behind.
The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address
Related articles
- A grand vision of becoming part of football’s elite
- Mancini Needs To Go If City Wish To Conquer Europe
- Madrid vs City. Contenders vs Pretenders
- City's Underwhelming Start
- Mancini Shows His Ineptitude Once Again
- Man City's Barcelona Vision Destabilises Mancini
- Curtain Call Needed for City's Three Stooges
No comments:
Post a Comment