Closing in on a Manager

[mynameisthehulk]

Anyone who thinks Mancini will come to us is deluded . Unless we're going to pay way way above the odds, what on earth is the attraction for him? If we are going to throw around the type of money to tempt him, Poch would have stayed.

 

He's left his job and people wet themselves. Just because Katie Price has dumped her latest husband , doesn't mean she's going to let me give her one does it?

 

She probably would you know...

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

but he won the league.

he has been successful nearly every single season he has been a manager

 

3 seasons at City

 

he won the FA cup

won the league

runners up in FA cup

Runners up in league

 

every single club and season he has done very very well

runners up in the cup to mighty Wigan, I don't think that points to good management

[Batman]

runners up in the cup to mighty Wigan, I don't think that points to good management

 

remind where where united, chelsea, arsenal, liverpool, spurs, saints etc all faired in the cup that season?

does that mean, fergie, benitez, pochettino, AvB, wenger are also crap managers?

[doddisalegend]

Thomas tuchel sounds like the type of appointment we would make,i like what i read about him,BUT at this moment in time a big name would be a massive statement of intent from the board,we need to know the ambition didnt go out the window when cortese left.

A big name like a mancini or possibley ranieri and to a lesser extent koeman would make players like adam think twice about jumping ship and really give the fanbase a lift.

 

I highly doubt it players couldn't care less I reckon. It's all about the ££ and champions league football. Mike Basset could be the manager of Liverpool and they still rather go there than stay at saints.

[OldNick]

remind where where united, chelsea, arsenal, liverpool, spurs, saints etc all faired in the cup that season?

does that mean, fergie, benitez, pochettino, AvB, wenger are also crap managers?

Bad management when you get to the final and fail to win with the team you have at your disposal. It can happen to everyone of course

[doddisalegend]

According to The Guardian article he is leaving because Galatasary's ambitions do not match his own it would appear.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/11/roberto-mancini-galatasaray-parted-company

 

This is after they qualified for the CL.

 

So, he seems unrealistic for us.

 

But he has never won the JPT and sees us as his best path to paint trophy glory;)

[Batman]

Bad management when you get to the final and fail to win with the team you have at your disposal. It can happen to everyone of course

 

indeed. was it bad management that we beat united in 76?

you could say that about any favourite that fails to win any game

[niceandfriendly]

Bad management when you get to the final and fail to win with the team you have at your disposal. It can happen to everyone of course

 

So if it's bad management to get to the final and lose, what is it not to get to the final all together? Like Batman said, means all those other top managers were worse than Mancini.

 

Can't believe people are still trying to dismiss his record .......

[Panda]

Bad management when you get to the final and fail to win with the team you have at your disposal. It can happen to everyone of course

 

Like manure in 1976?

[doddisalegend]

Anyone who thinks mancini would come here is mental.

 

changed it for you......

[Window Cleaner]

So if it's bad management to get to the final and lose, what is it not to get to the final all together? Like Batman said, means all those other top managers were worse than Mancini.

 

Can't believe people are still trying to dismiss his record .......

 

Probably because they have their hearts set on Koeman, not that they know much about him of course, perhaps they're amongst those who'll be losing a few bob if he doesn't get the job. Mancini is a known quality, Koeman is a big fish from a very small pond who may or may not do well with us.

Having said that I'd believe the Mancini rumours a bit more if there were rumours of us being sold to a genuine high roller, not the case unfortunately.

[Block34]

Anyone who thinks Mancini will come to us is deluded .

 

Not deluded, but I also think it unlikely.

 

Unless we're going to pay way way above the odds, what on earth is the attraction for him?

As LR put it yesterday, we are (still) 8th in the EPL which makes us, probably, in the top 20 of European clubs, plus we're currently (till Christmas at least dependent upon how the Poochy fares) the highest placed available club with, allegedly, a good sized transfer budget available, one that will be boosted by any sales. Not forgetting Staplewood of course. So we're actually quite an attractive proposition I would think. Plus think of the plaudits and kudos if he did get us into Europe (in which case he'd only be here for a year goddamit)!

 

 

If we are going to throw around the type of money to tempt him, Poch would have stayed.

Seemingly that is not the reason Poochy left

[CB Fry]

Forum gold today I see. Keep it up, chaps.

[Bearsy]

Please christ if nothing else can people just learn what 'deluded' means and not throw it at every thread to enforce your opinion.

 

i've been auto-correcting to delusional in my head for so long i don't even notice the difference anymore

[niceandfriendly]

Please christ if nothing else can people just learn what 'deluded' means and not throw it at every thread to enforce your opinion.

 

To delude (v) means to make someone believe something which is not true or real. Deluded (adj) means you believe something which is not true or real.

 

Believing Mancini is a poor manager and not good enough for Southampton Football Club is kind of.... deluded.

[WealdSaint]

There are several good candidates. I think we are all getting to stage where we want a name.

 

Once we have our name it will be interesting how long it will take the D**y F**l to run a new negative story on us

[trousers]

Thomas Tuchel it is

source?

 

cheers

[Patrick Bateman]

Sod Mancini, he has no record with youth players. I heard Dario Gradi has already picked up his new Saints training kit outside his new Ocean Village penthouse.

[Crab Lungs]

The case against Mancini, for me, is evident. As some of you have given me a bit of stick for my opinion, here is my reasoning.

 

Style of football

 

Well, were you entertained by his Manchester City team? Honestly? I wasn't, not in the slightest. They were dull, robotic, predictable - they'd often scrape a win and often, they were outplayed by lesser opponents - all this despite Mancini having almost infinite resources at his disposal. That's my memories of his teams. Massively underachieving and often getting by on individual brilliance alone.

 

There was no pattern of play or definable tactic under Mancini - it just looked like he'd cobbled eleven highly-paid, talented footballers every weekend, threw them together in a few different formations and hoped that it worked. It often did as, like I said above, the sheer quality he had to select from often dragged them out of situations that they should never have been in the first place. Was it tactical genius and nous that won them so many games? If you've got a memory like me and can remember watching City under Mancini then you'd likely agree with me. They were dour, laboured, demotivated - a contrast to Pellegrini's team - and in his first season he won the league - in four seasons and many millions more, Mancini won it just one, single time.

 

Not going to deny there was exceptions - 7-1 at old Trafford but often they were stumbling incoherent performances with players that should have been performing much better.

 

Irrespective of that, his team selections were often negative and his substitutions bizarre. Once again, a quick google search of that or browse of the Man City forums will confirm that to you. If you're expecting swashbuckling, attacking football with verve and skill from a highly-motivated, driven team under Mancini then you're going to be disappointed. Very, very disappointed. If you like disinterested, disorganised, stagnant football and a massively lopsided, unbalanced squad and then he's your man.

 

Is he really a successful manager?

 

The titles, cups and achievements in Mancini's career look impressive but for me, they mask huge deficiencies and stories which are seldom told.

 

I've always said this and I get quite frustrated as to why people can't see it themselves but I've always been of the opinion that his grossly mismanaged his resources at all his previous clubs - City being the prime example. Sure, winning the Premier League isn't a cakewalk but when looking into the context of things; poorest United team in years, Chelsea and Arsenal both in transitional periods then it's actually more amazing that he almost cocked it up.

 

And despite all those millions and a plethora of superstars, what else did he achieve at City? An FA Cup. He did, however, manage to lose Wigan in an FA Cup final with an all-star team (who, notably and quite clearly, didn't want to play for him) and two poor Champions League performances.

 

If you go a little further back, his record at Inter at first glance may seem impressive but scratch beneath the surface and, in reality, it wasn't all that bigger achievement. In fact, it was all rather disappointing. In 04-05, Inter were third. No great shakes, but not a huge disappointment either though they did fail in the Champions League despite being fancied. In 05-06, Juventus won the league but were stripped of their Scudetto, whilst Inter in 3rd were handed it by default - you have to ask, can we really credit that as a legitimate, Mancini-led title? I don't think so.

 

Still, finally, he did get some success in 06-07 - this time in a weakened Serie A (no Juventus as they had been relegated because of the scandal, Fiorentina, Milan, Lazio etc all deducted points) he led Inter to a scudetto, though this too, for me, is marred by the fact many of his nearest challengers with the resources to match Inter were handicapped by points deductions. So, for me, once again, not really a "win" for me - it's the footballing equivalent of going bowling and pulling out the buffers so your bowling ball simply can't not hit the pins. Sure, they cantered home - in a weakened league whilst also benefitting from Juventus' relegation and subsequent firesale snd their rivals points handicapped from the beginning.

 

Inter won the title again in 07-08 under Mancini but they almost blew it too - this time, losing an 11-point lead to just a one point lead going into the final week of the season. They done the job, but it was done laboriously when, like at Man City, the team they had should have been cantering away with the league - especially considering the weakened opposition and resources Inter had at their disposal.

 

As for all the Cup wins - surely it was a minimum expected and despite all the appearances in major finals, Mancini does have an awful lot of "runners up's" to his name.

 

To put things into perspective once more about his time in England - despite the millions, in four season he won the Premier League (just), FA Cup and a Community Shield (which is a 50/50 chance, btw)). Sounds fantastic. What a winner.

 

Is he a good fit?

 

Nope. Does he blood youth, is he renowned for giving youth a chance? No, not really - not at Inter and not at City either. He's a cheque book manager who likes to use the market to improve his squad. Sadly, for us (if he does join) his transfer market activity is as hit-and-miss as his teams performances. Rodwell, Javi Garcia, Milner, Boateng - all huge transfers and for the most part, hugely underwhelming. Will he be expecting that kind of backing here? Well, if he is then I'd be worried with £100m sloshing around in his pocket.

 

Does he spend well in the market? Hit 'n' miss record. Would he require a huge budget and constant backing every season? Yes. Will he get in a strop if he doesn't get his own way? Likely.

 

Also, surely the fact that he simply NEEDS to spend money to improve the team say something about his coaching ability? For many of you, it says something about Redknapp when he does the same but it doesn't about Mancini? Hmmmm... at least Redknapp's teams are often entertaining.

 

Oh - and can anyone remember any player directly crediting him for creating a team-spirit or improving their personal game, like many of our players often did and have under Adkins and Pochettino? No, I don't.

 

Personality

 

Surly, moody and blameless at all times - he has always been very slow in giving credit to other teams when on the losing end of things - you don't have to cast your mind back far either - City's 3-1 defeat at St. Mary's saw Mancini struggling to say anything positive about our performance after "little old Southampton" comfortably outplayed his megastars.

 

He's also abrasive and I believe, has a problem with commanding respect. Many on here think he'd instantly command respect, well I'm not so sure. He struggled with the Man City dressing room significantly, with monthly bust-ups commonplace. You have to ask yourself... has this happened under Pellegrini? No. Why? Probably because he knows what he's doing, he's not aloof and treats them like adults, not children. His man-management, or lack of, has always been evident. I don't think you'd have to dig too deep online to find plenty of things ex-players have said about him and rightly or wrongly, the controversy that has surrounded him - Tevez, Balotelli etc.

 

I think you've all been a bit taken in by the touchline gesticulating, hand-waving and scarf wearing - sure, it looks passionate and it kinda looks like he knows what he's doing... but IMO, he doesn't.

 

I'll probably add a bit more to this later, but that's it for now.

Edited 11 June, 2014 by Crab Lungs

[Saint Charlie]

It obviously won't be Mancini.

[david in sweden]

I don't think there is any " unnecessary delay " in finding the new manager, and the time it has taken must indicate that the Board is being pretty thorough about the appointment.

 

I also think that they were taken unaware a bit and didn't expect MP to jump ship at the last moment....and the number of reported applicants must have surprised a lot of people and sorting a short list of even 10 can't be so easy.

 

I'm pleased with what MP did for SFC - whilst he was here, but now that he's gone ..to the club he's gone to...it has only increased the distaste I've had for Spuds.. over the last 30-odd years.

 

The one thing that disturbs me (and others) seems to be the mounting uncertainty (supposedly) being aroused amongst some of the players.

 

The bottom line (as always) is ....yes they have a contract.. but if they really don't want to be at SFC anymore ...they can s*d off ... just as long as we make their new employers pay through the nose.

[CB Fry]

That's a heck of a lot of detail on someone who blatantly is not going to be our next manager.

 

Can you do a dig into the career of Gerry Francis, now?

[gammon cheeks]

source?

 

cheers

Was at staplewood today ......so i was told .

[S-Clarke]

Was at staplewood today ......so i was told .

 

Would be an utterly class appt. , but still have a feeling it's Koeman.

[St Lej]

The case against Mancini, for me, is evident. As some of you have given me a bit of stick for my opinion, here is my reasoning.

 

Style of football

 

Well, were you entertained by his Manchester City team? Honestly? I wasn't, not in the slightest. They were dull, robotic, predictable - they'd often scrape a win and often, they were outplayed by lesser opponents - all this despite Mancini having almost infinite resources at his disposal. That's my memories of his teams. Massively underachieving and often getting by on individual brilliance alone.

 

There was no pattern of play or definable tactic under Mancini - it just looked like he'd cobbled eleven highly-paid, talented footballers every weekend, threw them together in a few different formations and hoped that it worked. It often did as, like I said above, the sheer quality he had to select from often dragged them out of situations that they should never have been in the first place. Was it tactical genius and nous that won them so many games? If you've got a memory like me and can remember watching City under Mancini then you'd likely agree with me. They were dour, laboured, demotivated - a contrast to Pellegrini's team - and in his first season he won the league - in four seasons and many millions more, Mancini won it just one, single time.

 

Not going to deny there was exceptions - 7-1 at old Trafford but often they were stumbling incoherent performances with players that should have been performing much better.

 

Irrespective of that, his team selections were often negative and his substitutions bizarre. Once again, a quick google search of that or browse of the Man City forums will confirm that to you. If you're expecting swashbuckling, attacking football with verve and skill from a highly-motivated, driven team under Mancini then you're going to be disappointed. Very, very disappointed. If you like disinterested, disorganised, stagnant football and a massively lopsided, unbalanced squad and then he's your man.

 

Is he really a successful manager?

 

The titles, cups and achievements in Mancini's career look impressive but for me, they mask huge deficiencies and stories which are seldom told.

 

I've always said this and I get quite frustrated as to why people can't see it themselves but I've always been of the opinion that his grossly mismanaged his resources at all his previous clubs - City being the prime example. Sure, winning the Premier League isn't a cakewalk but when looking into the context of things; poorest United team in years, Chelsea and Arsenal both in transitional periods then it's actually more amazing that he almost cocked it up.

 

And despite all those millions and a plethora of superstars, what else did he achieve at City? An FA Cup. He did, however, manage to lose Wigan in an FA Cup final with an all-star team (who, notably and quite clearly, didn't want to play for him) and two poor Champions League performances.

 

If you go a little further back, his record at Inter at first glance may seem impressive but scratch beneath the surface and, in reality, it wasn't all that bigger achievement. In fact, it was all rather disappointing. In 04-05, Inter were third. No great shakes, but not a huge disappointment either though they did fail in the Champions League despite being fancied. In 05-06, Juventus won the league but were stripped of their Scudetto, whilst Inter in 3rd were handed it by default - you have to ask, can we really credit that as a legitimate, Mancini-led title? I don't think so.

 

Still, finally, he did get some success in 06-07 - this time in a weakened Serie A (no Juventus as they had been relegated because of the scandal, Fiorentina, Milan, Lazio etc all deducted points) he led Inter to a scudetto, though this too, for me, is marred by the fact many of his nearest challengers with the resources to match Inter were handicapped by points deductions. So, for me, once again, not really a "win" for me - it's the footballing equivalent of going bowling and pulling out the buffers so your bowling ball simply can't not hit the pins. Sure, they cantered home - in a weakened league whilst also benefitting from Juventus' relegation and subsequent firesale snd their rivals points handicapped from the beginning.

 

Inter won the title again in 07-08 under Mancini but they almost blew it too - this time, losing an 11-point lead to just a one point lead going into the final week of the season. They done the job, but it was done laboriously when, like at Man City, the team they had should have been cantering away with the league - especially considering the weakened opposition and resources Inter had at their disposal.

 

As for all the Cup wins - surely it was a minimum expected and despite all the appearances in major finals, Mancini does have an awful lot of "runners up's" to his name.

 

To put things into perspective once more about his time in England - despite the millions, in four season he won the Premier League (just), FA Cup and a Community Shield (which is a 50/50 chance, btw)). Sounds fantastic. What a winner.

 

Is he a good fit?

 

Nope. Does he blood youth, is he renowned for giving youth a chance? No, not really - not at Inter and not at City either. He's a cheque book manager who likes to use the market to improve his squad. Sadly, for us (if he does join) his transfer market activity is as hit-and-miss as his teams performances. Rodwell, Javi Garcia, Milner, Boateng - all huge transfers and for the most part, hugely underwhelming. Will he be expecting that kind of backing here? Well, if he is then I'd be worried with £100m sloshing around in his pocket.

 

Does he spend well in the market? Hit 'n' miss record. Would he require a huge budget and constant backing every season? Yes. Will he get in a strop if he doesn't get his own way? Likely.

 

Also, surely the fact that he simply NEEDS to spend money to improve the team say something about his coaching ability? For many of you, it says something about Redknapp when he does the same but it doesn't about Mancini? Hmmmm... at least Redknapp's teams are often entertaining.

 

Oh - and can anyone remember any player directly crediting him for creating a team-spirit or improving their personal game, like many of our players often did and have under Adkins and Pochettino? No, I don't.

 

Personality

 

Surly, moody and blameless at all times - he has always been very slow in giving credit to other teams when on the losing end of things - you don't have to cast your mind back far either - City's 3-1 defeat at St. Mary's saw Mancini struggling to say anything positive about our performance after "little old Southampton" comfortably outplayed his megastars.

 

He's also abrasive and I believe, has a problem with commanding respect. Many on here think he'd instantly command respect, well I'm not so sure. He struggled with the Man City dressing room significantly, with monthly bust-ups commonplace. You have to ask yourself... has this happened under Pellegrini? No. Why? Probably because he knows what he's doing, he's not aloof and treats them like adults, not children. His man-management, or lack of, has always been evident. I don't think you'd have to dig too deep online to find plenty of things ex-players have said about him and rightly or wrongly, the controversy that has surrounded him - Tevez, Balotelli etc.

 

I think you've all been a bit taken in by the touchline gesticulating, hand-waving and scarf wearing - sure, it looks passionate and it kinda looks like he knows what he's doing... but IMO, he doesn't.

 

I'll probably add a bit more to this later, but that's it for now.

 

Jesus Christ. This sums up the modern saints fan, I feel. Utterly laughable

[Nolan]

Sod Mancini, he has no record with youth players. I heard Dario Gradi has already picked up his new Saints training kit outside his new Ocean Village penthouse.

 

I presume he ignored the 5, 19 year olds who were in the Galatasaray squad for the second half of last season.... I bet he didn't even speak to 19 year Bruno, who got 3 assists from the right wing last season... Poor Bruno

[for_heaven's_Saint]

I'll probably add a bit more to this later, but that's it for now.

 

Please don't!

[beatlesaint]

Please don't!

 

[gammon cheeks]

Would be an utterly class appt. , but still have a feeling it's Koeman.

Iwanted Koeman but the more i read up about Tuchel i think he would suit us ....very similar style to mopo.

[S-Clarke]

Iwanted Koeman but the more i read up about Tuchel i think he would suit us ....very similar style to mopo.

 

Yeah, Tuchel is pretty much another version of MP, I just hope he's a more decent human being.

[Viking Warrior]

I really hope we announce our manager .tomorrow . I want some really positive news, seeing that lovern post has really ****ed me of .

[Badger]

Iwanted Koeman but the more i read up about Tuchel i think he would suit us ....very similar style to mopo.

 

Anyone else concerned that he might not have the experience or track record to command authority with the squad ?

 

One area that Koeman has a distinct advantage in my view.

[Toon Saint]

The case against Mancini, for me, is evident. As some of you have given me a bit of stick for my opinion, here is my reasoning.

 

Style of football

 

Well, were you entertained by his Manchester City team? Honestly? I wasn't, not in the slightest. They were dull, robotic, predictable - they'd often scrape a win and often, they were outplayed by lesser opponents - all this despite Mancini having almost infinite resources at his disposal. That's my memories of his teams. Massively underachieving and often getting by on individual brilliance alone.

 

There was no pattern of play or definable tactic under Mancini - it just looked like he'd cobbled eleven highly-paid, talented footballers every weekend, threw them together in a few different formations and hoped that it worked. It often did as, like I said above, the sheer quality he had to select from often dragged them out of situations that they should never have been in the first place. Was it tactical genius and nous that won them so many games? If you've got a memory like me and can remember watching City under Mancini then you'd likely agree with me. They were dour, laboured, demotivated - a contrast to Pellegrini's team - and in his first season he won the league - in four seasons and many millions more, Mancini won it just one, single time.

 

Not going to deny there was exceptions - 7-1 at old Trafford but often they were stumbling incoherent performances with players that should have been performing much better.

 

Irrespective of that, his team selections were often negative and his substitutions bizarre. Once again, a quick google search of that or browse of the Man City forums will confirm that to you. If you're expecting swashbuckling, attacking football with verve and skill from a highly-motivated, driven team under Mancini then you're going to be disappointed. Very, very disappointed. If you like disinterested, disorganised, stagnant football and a massively lopsided, unbalanced squad and then he's your man.

 

Is he really a successful manager?

 

The titles, cups and achievements in Mancini's career look impressive but for me, they mask huge deficiencies and stories which are seldom told.

 

I've always said this and I get quite frustrated as to why people can't see it themselves but I've always been of the opinion that his grossly mismanaged his resources at all his previous clubs - City being the prime example. Sure, winning the Premier League isn't a cakewalk but when looking into the context of things; poorest United team in years, Chelsea and Arsenal both in transitional periods then it's actually more amazing that he almost cocked it up.

 

And despite all those millions and a plethora of superstars, what else did he achieve at City? An FA Cup. He did, however, manage to lose Wigan in an FA Cup final with an all-star team (who, notably and quite clearly, didn't want to play for him) and two poor Champions League performances.

 

If you go a little further back, his record at Inter at first glance may seem impressive but scratch beneath the surface and, in reality, it wasn't all that bigger achievement. In fact, it was all rather disappointing. In 04-05, Inter were third. No great shakes, but not a huge disappointment either though they did fail in the Champions League despite being fancied. In 05-06, Juventus won the league but were stripped of their Scudetto, whilst Inter in 3rd were handed it by default - you have to ask, can we really credit that as a legitimate, Mancini-led title? I don't think so.

 

Still, finally, he did get some success in 06-07 - this time in a weakened Serie A (no Juventus as they had been relegated because of the scandal, Fiorentina, Milan, Lazio etc all deducted points) he led Inter to a scudetto, though this too, for me, is marred by the fact many of his nearest challengers with the resources to match Inter were handicapped by points deductions. So, for me, once again, not really a "win" for me - it's the footballing equivalent of going bowling and pulling out the buffers so your bowling ball simply can't not hit the pins. Sure, they cantered home - in a weakened league whilst also benefitting from Juventus' relegation and subsequent firesale snd their rivals points handicapped from the beginning.

 

Inter won the title again in 07-08 under Mancini but they almost blew it too - this time, losing an 11-point lead to just a one point lead going into the final week of the season. They done the job, but it was done laboriously when, like at Man City, the team they had should have been cantering away with the league - especially considering the weakened opposition and resources Inter had at their disposal.

 

As for all the Cup wins - surely it was a minimum expected and despite all the appearances in major finals, Mancini does have an awful lot of "runners up's" to his name.

 

To put things into perspective once more about his time in England - despite the millions, in four season he won the Premier League (just), FA Cup and a Community Shield (which is a 50/50 chance, btw)). Sounds fantastic. What a winner.

 

Is he a good fit?

 

Nope. Does he blood youth, is he renowned for giving youth a chance? No, not really - not at Inter and not at City either. He's a cheque book manager who likes to use the market to improve his squad. Sadly, for us (if he does join) his transfer market activity is as hit-and-miss as his teams performances. Rodwell, Javi Garcia, Milner, Boateng - all huge transfers and for the most part, hugely underwhelming. Will he be expecting that kind of backing here? Well, if he is then I'd be worried with £100m sloshing around in his pocket.

 

Does he spend well in the market? Hit 'n' miss record. Would he require a huge budget and constant backing every season? Yes. Will he get in a strop if he doesn't get his own way? Likely.

 

Also, surely the fact that he simply NEEDS to spend money to improve the team say something about his coaching ability? For many of you, it says something about Redknapp when he does the same but it doesn't about Mancini? Hmmmm... at least Redknapp's teams are often entertaining.

 

Oh - and can anyone remember any player directly crediting him for creating a team-spirit or improving their personal game, like many of our players often did and have under Adkins and Pochettino? No, I don't.

 

Personality

 

Surly, moody and blameless at all times - he has always been very slow in giving credit to other teams when on the losing end of things - you don't have to cast your mind back far either - City's 3-1 defeat at St. Mary's saw Mancini struggling to say anything positive about our performance after "little old Southampton" comfortably outplayed his megastars.

 

He's also abrasive and I believe, has a problem with commanding respect. Many on here think he'd instantly command respect, well I'm not so sure. He struggled with the Man City dressing room significantly, with monthly bust-ups commonplace. You have to ask yourself... has this happened under Pellegrini? No. Why? Probably because he knows what he's doing, he's not aloof and treats them like adults, not children. His man-management, or lack of, has always been evident. I don't think you'd have to dig too deep online to find plenty of things ex-players have said about him and rightly or wrongly, the controversy that has surrounded him - Tevez, Balotelli etc.

 

I think you've all been a bit taken in by the touchline gesticulating, hand-waving and scarf wearing - sure, it looks passionate and it kinda looks like he knows what he's doing... but IMO, he doesn't.

 

I'll probably add a bit more to this later, but that's it for now.

 

Top post mate, completely agree. City got rid because he didn't fit their 'holistic' model. Bit of a cringey phrase but basically that meant ensuring that all age groups from u8s to the first-team play the same style of attacking football, while at the same time ensuring a pathway for players in their academy which they have pumped millions and millions into. Mancini didn't play attractive, attacking football or give youngsters a chance. Someone mentioned the likes of Johnson, Rodwell, and Sinclair above as evidence of him blooding young talent, when in reality he paid absurd amounts for them and barely gave them a chance. All three careers stagnated while at City.

 

The 'holistic' approach they have moved towards is very similar to the 'Southampton Way' that our new board will likely use as their crutch. If Mancini couldn't manage balancing that at City with the luxury of limitless funds, not sure why people think he'd be a good fit for us at all when money available for transfers is likely to be minimal in comparison. Must be the nice hair.

[Wade Garrett]

Anyone else concerned that he might not have the experience or track record to command authority with the squad ?

 

One area that Koeman has a distinct advantage in my view.

 

I think it would be a mistake trying to appoint a carbon copy of Poch. Think we also need more of a name to command the respect of our international players.

[brett24]

Was at staplewood today ......so i was told .

 

Reliable source? Hope it's Tuchel.

[Didcot Saint]

The case against Mancini, for me, is evident. As some of you have given me a bit of stick for my opinion, here is my reasoning.

 

Style of football

 

Well, were you entertained by his Manchester City team? Honestly? I wasn't, not in the slightest. They were dull, robotic, predictable - they'd often scrape a win and often, they were outplayed by lesser opponents - all this despite Mancini having almost infinite resources at his disposal. That's my memories of his teams. Massively underachieving and often getting by on individual brilliance alone.

 

There was no pattern of play or definable tactic under Mancini - it just looked like he'd cobbled eleven highly-paid, talented footballers every weekend, threw them together in a few different formations and hoped that it worked. It often did as, like I said above, the sheer quality he had to select from often dragged them out of situations that they should never have been in the first place. Was it tactical genius and nous that won them so many games? If you've got a memory like me and can remember watching City under Mancini then you'd likely agree with me. They were dour, laboured, demotivated - a contrast to Pellegrini's team - and in his first season he won the league - in four seasons and many millions more, Mancini won it just one, single time.

 

Not going to deny there was exceptions - 7-1 at old Trafford but often they were stumbling incoherent performances with players that should have been performing much better.

 

Irrespective of that, his team selections were often negative and his substitutions bizarre. Once again, a quick google search of that or browse of the Man City forums will confirm that to you. If you're expecting swashbuckling, attacking football with verve and skill from a highly-motivated, driven team under Mancini then you're going to be disappointed. Very, very disappointed. If you like disinterested, disorganised, stagnant football and a massively lopsided, unbalanced squad and then he's your man.

 

Is he really a successful manager?

 

The titles, cups and achievements in Mancini's career look impressive but for me, they mask huge deficiencies and stories which are seldom told.

 

I've always said this and I get quite frustrated as to why people can't see it themselves but I've always been of the opinion that his grossly mismanaged his resources at all his previous clubs - City being the prime example. Sure, winning the Premier League isn't a cakewalk but when looking into the context of things; poorest United team in years, Chelsea and Arsenal both in transitional periods then it's actually more amazing that he almost cocked it up.

 

And despite all those millions and a plethora of superstars, what else did he achieve at City? An FA Cup. He did, however, manage to lose Wigan in an FA Cup final with an all-star team (who, notably and quite clearly, didn't want to play for him) and two poor Champions League performances.

 

If you go a little further back, his record at Inter at first glance may seem impressive but scratch beneath the surface and, in reality, it wasn't all that bigger achievement. In fact, it was all rather disappointing. In 04-05, Inter were third. No great shakes, but not a huge disappointment either though they did fail in the Champions League despite being fancied. In 05-06, Juventus won the league but were stripped of their Scudetto, whilst Inter in 3rd were handed it by default - you have to ask, can we really credit that as a legitimate, Mancini-led title? I don't think so.

 

Still, finally, he did get some success in 06-07 - this time in a weakened Serie A (no Juventus as they had been relegated because of the scandal, Fiorentina, Milan, Lazio etc all deducted points) he led Inter to a scudetto, though this too, for me, is marred by the fact many of his nearest challengers with the resources to match Inter were handicapped by points deductions. So, for me, once again, not really a "win" for me - it's the footballing equivalent of going bowling and pulling out the buffers so your bowling ball simply can't not hit the pins. Sure, they cantered home - in a weakened league whilst also benefitting from Juventus' relegation and subsequent firesale snd their rivals points handicapped from the beginning.

 

Inter won the title again in 07-08 under Mancini but they almost blew it too - this time, losing an 11-point lead to just a one point lead going into the final week of the season. They done the job, but it was done laboriously when, like at Man City, the team they had should have been cantering away with the league - especially considering the weakened opposition and resources Inter had at their disposal.

 

As for all the Cup wins - surely it was a minimum expected and despite all the appearances in major finals, Mancini does have an awful lot of "runners up's" to his name.

 

To put things into perspective once more about his time in England - despite the millions, in four season he won the Premier League (just), FA Cup and a Community Shield (which is a 50/50 chance, btw)). Sounds fantastic. What a winner.

 

Is he a good fit?

 

Nope. Does he blood youth, is he renowned for giving youth a chance? No, not really - not at Inter and not at City either. He's a cheque book manager who likes to use the market to improve his squad. Sadly, for us (if he does join) his transfer market activity is as hit-and-miss as his teams performances. Rodwell, Javi Garcia, Milner, Boateng - all huge transfers and for the most part, hugely underwhelming. Will he be expecting that kind of backing here? Well, if he is then I'd be worried with £100m sloshing around in his pocket.

 

Does he spend well in the market? Hit 'n' miss record. Would he require a huge budget and constant backing every season? Yes. Will he get in a strop if he doesn't get his own way? Likely.

 

Also, surely the fact that he simply NEEDS to spend money to improve the team say something about his coaching ability? For many of you, it says something about Redknapp when he does the same but it doesn't about Mancini? Hmmmm... at least Redknapp's teams are often entertaining.

 

Oh - and can anyone remember any player directly crediting him for creating a team-spirit or improving their personal game, like many of our players often did and have under Adkins and Pochettino? No, I don't.

 

Personality

 

Surly, moody and blameless at all times - he has always been very slow in giving credit to other teams when on the losing end of things - you don't have to cast your mind back far either - City's 3-1 defeat at St. Mary's saw Mancini struggling to say anything positive about our performance after "little old Southampton" comfortably outplayed his megastars.

 

He's also abrasive and I believe, has a problem with commanding respect. Many on here think he'd instantly command respect, well I'm not so sure. He struggled with the Man City dressing room significantly, with monthly bust-ups commonplace. You have to ask yourself... has this happened under Pellegrini? No. Why? Probably because he knows what he's doing, he's not aloof and treats them like adults, not children. His man-management, or lack of, has always been evident. I don't think you'd have to dig too deep online to find plenty of things ex-players have said about him and rightly or wrongly, the controversy that has surrounded him - Tevez, Balotelli etc.

 

I think you've all been a bit taken in by the touchline gesticulating, hand-waving and scarf wearing - sure, it looks passionate and it kinda looks like he knows what he's doing... but IMO, he doesn't.

 

I'll probably add a bit more to this later, but that's it for now.

 

Superb, absolutely spot on mate. We'll said and researched. Not a good fit for us in a million years

[Batman]

anyone ITK ffs?

[SaintRobbie]

It obviously won't be Mancini.

 

I agree - I do not think I've ever seen a red and white scarf that would be long enough for him.

[brett24]

Just hope it's not Steve Bruce

[dubai_phil]

anyone ITK ffs?

 

Yes.

 

One of my sources says it is Mancini.

 

One of my Sources says it is Tuchel.

 

One of my sources says it is Clement.

 

One of my sources says it is Richie Barker Up Yours fark off scummer.

 

Worringly, my Taxi Driver mate is VERY quiet this week.

 

And also, GS has been banned

[teacher]

Koeman back to being favourite on Sky Bet

[SNSUN]

News not coming up at 23:30 re: managerial appointment...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There, that should keep a few of you awake past bed time!

:-)

 

...or not...

[WealdSaint]

Alex Goring Crook ‏@alex_crook 58s

 

For those asking was told 2day from a good source #saintsfc and Koeman yet to reach an agreement over transfer budget. Deal not dead though.

[SaintRobbie]

Koeman back to being favourite on Sky Bet

 

It will be. I am sure Les Reed wouldn't have said Saints fans would be excited if it's not Koeman. Unless Sir Alex Ferguson or Wenger is on the way!

[dubai_phil]

Surprised nobody posted this

 

Rannald Koeman ‏@crstig 1h

Bored of reading negative #saintsfc news? How about negative fantasy? What If. Reflections of a pessimist Part Two:- http://georgeweahscousin.com/2014/06/11/what-if-part-two/ …

[aintforever]

I just wish the would hurry up and appoint someone. I may be wrong but I have a feeling that behind the scenes at SMS Kruger and Reed are like an episode of Laurel and Hardy.

[SaintRobbie]

Alex Goring Crook ‏@alex_crook 58s

 

For those asking was told 2day from a good source #saintsfc and Koeman yet to reach an agreement over transfer budget. Deal not dead though.

 

Mmmmm if true that would imply Les Reed was not being entirely honest in his interview. I don't want to believe that.

[SaintRobbie]

Surprised nobody posted this

 

Rannald Koeman ‏@crstig 1h

Bored of reading negative #saintsfc news? How about negative fantasy? What If. Reflections of a pessimist Part Two:- http://georgeweahscousin.com/2014/06/11/what-if-part-two/ …

 

That was 20 seconds of my life I will never get back.

[SaintRobbie]

I just wish the would hurry up and appoint someone. I may be wrong but I have a feeling that behind the scenes at SMS Kruger and Reed are like an episode of Laurel and Hardy.

 

That's screaming out for a photoshop moment from somebody!

[Pancake]

Mmmmm if true that would imply Les Reed was not being entirely honest in his interview. I don't want to believe that.

How? Les said they were close but paperwork is taking time. To me, if Ronnie is making sure the contract he signs stipulates the transfer budget he will get, that sounds like paper work...