** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
- Status
Quite simply Tom, City are in the top 4 now, they weren't under Hughes. You're the one that's compared Hughes's 'team' to Mancini's 'individuals'. How long Hughes was given makes no difference, as the point was to show that a group of highly talented individuals can out perform a 'team'.
Every team faces the threat of losing key players but unlike others, there's no risk of City not reinvesting and bringing in a replacement (who knows, in Dzeko and Balotelli, they may already have a replacement if he goes).
This whole 1 man team stuff is overplayed too. Better individuals than Tevez have left less talented squads than City's and the club has still gone on.
That Mancini plays to draw every big game
I'd love Arsenal to sign Samba, or someone like him. A big, strong Centre Half. It's exactly what is needed for Arsenal IMO.
Utter utter rubbish
Yeah okay, Dzeko may well go and score goals next season but he'll never do the same job Tevez has done for them i.e. on many occasions go and score goals all of his own work. As for Balotelli, he probably wont be there next season either. Of course they'll buy to replace Tevez but it's by no means a given that his replacement will do as well, less chance if anything due to the lack of world class strikers available
That Mancini plays to draw every big game
Dont think I said it as conclusively as you're making out but hey ho where's the argument that says differently? When was the last big game under Mancini where they went all out to win?
No Tom, using the fact that they scored goals at OT and Anfield as justification that Hughes's side was better is utter, utter rubbish.
Simple facts of the matter are that City are in a better position under Mancini than they were under Hughes. If you want to use the fact that Mancini has been their longer and built a team as the reason why he's doing better, then you're arguing with your own point that Mancini's side is just a collection of individuals and not a team. Which is the point I was trying to make, you're contradicting yourself (nothing new there
). If Tevez goes, it will be a challenge for City to replace him but as we've seen many times before, 'star' players have left sides and the sides haven't crumbled.
I seem to remember you saying Liverpool were going to be worse off when Torres left in January. Look how things worked out there
You quite clearly said Mancini looks to draw the big games
As for going 'all out to win'; that's the exaggeration I'm talking about. There's a huge difference between setting out to draw a game and going all out to win it.
City are trying to build a side around a strong defense and like I've said, at times they've been too negative but this idea that they set out to draw all the big games is rubbish.
No Tom, using the fact that they scored goals at OT and Anfield as justification that Hughes's side was better is utter, utter rubbish.
Simple facts of the matter are that City are in a better position under Mancini than they were under Hughes. If you want to use the fact that Mancini has been their longer and built a team as the reason why he's doing better, then you're arguing with your own point that Mancini's side is just a collection of individuals and not a team. Which is the point I was trying to make, you're contradicting yourself (nothing new there
Once again Barry I find myself having to spell everything out for you due to your failure to read things properly (nothing new there)
The simple facts of the matter are that Hughes had to build a team from scratch, Hughes' team was competitive, beating Arsenal and scoring 4 goals in the process, going to OT and scoring 3 times, being the better team at Anfield, you say City are in a better position under Mancini and the lack of time given to Hughes to achieve the same success is irrelevant when that's just utter ****. If City were more competitive under Hughes (as the results/performances prove) then the very real reality is that Hughes very well may of got City into the top 4 last season and who knows what this season. In fact IIRC City's points ratio went down when Mancini took charge last season.
As for me contradicting myself, no I'm not because at no point am I agreeing with you that Mancini is doing a better job (I would think that much was clear)
What I'm actually insinuating is that Mancini has had an easier job than Hughes coming in once much of the spine of the team had already been established, all Mancini has done is added a few players to that and been given the luxury of a full season with that team.If Tevez goes, it will be a challenge for City to replace him but as we've seen many times before, 'star' players have left sides and the sides haven't crumbled.
I seem to remember you saying Liverpool were going to be worse off when Torres left in January. Look how things worked out there
1- whilst that may be true you're talking about sides in a much better position than City, that have had foundations for a good side for longer than just 2/3 years
2- given Torres' form prior to his sale I think you're probably wrong there as well, I dont recall having an opinion on how Liverpool would do without him one way or the other tbh. Again though as per the norm with Liverpool supporters 2 good months under no pressure is hardly the halmark of a great revival to the upper echelons of English football. I'll reserve judgement until next season
You quite clearly said Mancini looks to draw the big games
Yes I did, but you said I exaggerated saying he looks to draw all the big games. I didn't at any point put a percentage on my statement, that's you not seeing the big picture again. If you class Liverpool a big game he didn't try and draw that one at Eastlands at the start of the season. He did on the other hand play for a draw in the 3 games against United, the two against Chelsea and the away games at Arsenal & Spurs.
Well that cant be the exaggeration you were talking about as I said that after you claimed I was being exaggerative
As for the other part there's really not a huge difference at all; you either play with the mentality that you'd take a draw and if you can nick one at the other end than great (which is how City approach most games) or you play to win (like United, Chelsea & Arsenal do). Going all out to win doesn't mean playing 3 at the back, 3 strikers, 2 wingers and no GK it means playing with the intention to win. I suspect your interpretation is very different.
Once again though you've turned this into a long drawn out debate revolving mainly around technicalities which is exactly the reason why I put you on my ignore list to begin with
Kaka would definitely add creativity to chelsea (see some of his recent real performances where he seems to be back in form) and we desperately need a creative central midfielder...
But. He would probably be overpriced and he's not exactly young + he could get injured again + he might not regain form properly. It's very risky. Would prefer we bought someone young for less money.
But. He would probably be overpriced and he's not exactly young + he could get injured again + he might not regain form properly. It's very risky. Would prefer we bought someone young for less money.
Once again Barry I find myself having to spell everything out for you due to your failure to read things properly (nothing new there)
The simple facts of the matter are that Hughes had to build a team from scratch, Hughes' team was competitive, beating Arsenal and scoring 4 goals in the process, going to OT and scoring 3 times, being the better team at Anfield, you say City are in a better position under Mancini and the lack of time given to Hughes to achieve the same success is irrelevant when that's just utter ****. If City were more competitive under Hughes (as the results/performances prove) then the very real reality is that Hughes very well may of got City into the top 4 last season and who knows what this season. In fact IIRC City's points ratio went down when Mancini took charge last season.
As for me contradicting myself, no I'm not because at no point am I agreeing with you that Mancini is doing a better job (I would think that much was clear)
Jesus Christ Tom. You seriously live in a dream world where all things Utd are perfect and all their rivals are disastrous.
You've made a stupid statement that City are simple a group of individuals and that's the sole reason as to why they can never finish above 3rd place. You then made an even more stupid statement by saying City under Hughes were 'a more effective unit'.
They're very clear statements and if City were more EFFECTIVE, their league position would have reflected that. City are more effective under Mancini than they were under Hughes, it's a simple fact. If you want to say that Hughes would have turned City into a better side had he stayed, that's fine but you didn't say that.
As for you contradicting yourself, it's simple. You claim that Mancini hasn't built a side yet your reason for why they're more successful (but not as effective
) is that he's had more time. If City are still just a group of individuals, what difference does the time make? Either a group of individuals can out perform a 'team' or Mancini has built some sort of team. Both things you've disagreed with.1- Not always. The Arsenal side that lost Henry was a fairly new/young side and they didn't have the £m's that City had either. Nor the Liverpool side that lost Owen and Torres.
2- What am I wrong about?
Liverpool are performing a lot better without Torres than we were with him and you certainly did have an opinion. You disagreed with me saying we could be better off with Suarez/Carroll than Torres. Go back and check the transfer thread if you like
Yes I did, but you said I exaggerated saying he looks to draw all the big games. I didn't at any point put a percentage on my statement, that's you not seeing the big picture again. If you class Liverpool a big game he didn't try and draw that one at Eastlands at the start of the season. He did on the other hand play for a draw in the 3 games against United, the two against Chelsea and the away games at Arsenal & Spurs.
Well that cant be the exaggeration you were talking about as I said that after you claimed I was being exaggerative
As for the other part there's really not a huge difference at all; you either play with the mentality that you'd take a draw and if you can nick one at the other end than great (which is how City approach most games) or you play to win (like United, Chelsea & Arsenal do). Going all out to win doesn't mean playing 3 at the back, 3 strikers, 2 wingers and no GK it means playing with the intention to win. I suspect your interpretation is very different.
Once again though you've turned this into a long drawn out debate revolving mainly around technicalities which is exactly the reason why I put you on my ignore list to begin with
You're jibbering now and it's all subjective so I'll just agree to disagree.
And why reply to my posts if you've got me on ignore. We have long drawn out debates Tom because (without being rude) you're delusional. You make stupid statements and when you get questioned you end up digging and digging and usually ends with 'you think you can do a better job than Fergie?'
If you've got me on ignore, keep me there and I'll stick you on ignore too then we'll never have to talk to each other again, and the world will be a happy place
Really? Was it not you that proclaimed that Chelsea are done whereas it was me that was saying the opposite?
When would it have? He wasn't given a season in charge with the team he built. You above anyone else should know that your poisition at one stage of the season doesn't necessarily reflect on where you end up.
Oh for crying out loud is it not clear from the very start that I was that Hughes did a better job, if I thought he did a better job when he was there obviously he'd of gone on to do better as well
As for you contradicting yourself, it's simple. You claim that Mancini hasn't built a side yet your reason for why they're more successful (but not as effective
JESUS!! I said Mancini hasn't built a team that is capable of challenging for the title which is where you thought they'd be next season and at NO POINT have I agree that they're more successful now than they were under Hughes BECAUSE HUGHES WASN'T GIVEN A FULL SEASON IN CHARGE WITH THE TEAM HE BUILT!!
You cannot say they're more successful now than when Hughes was in charge, had Hughes had all of last season in charge and they finished 5th and Mancini came in at the start of the this season and finished 4th then fine but that's not how it happened is it??
1- Not always. The Arsenal side that lost Henry was a fairly new/young side and they didn't have the £m's that City had either. Nor the Liverpool side that lost Owen and Torres.
2- What am I wrong about?
Liverpool are performing a lot better without Torres than we were with him and you certainly did have an opinion. You disagreed with me saying we could be better off with Suarez/Carroll than Torres. Go back and check the transfer thread if you like
1- You think City will challenge for the title next season regardless if they lose Tevez yes? When Arsenal lost Henry they finished 3rd, when Liverpool lost Owen god knows where they finished but they certainly didn't challenge for the title, it's still up for debate as to whether or not Liverpool will challenge next season although even with Torres you've only challenged for the title once. This whole debate started off about City challenging for the title next season not about any old team losing a star playing and carrying on finishing 3rd and below
2- I've got no interest in starting a completely different debate with you about my predictions for Liverpool once Torres left but again nothing is proven where Liverpool are concerned yet
I've laid that argument at you have I? The reason why we go on and on is because you're reply is always 'Well you never said that to begin with' and I'm left having to explain things to you word for word
If you've got me on ignore, keep me there and I'll stick you on ignore too then we'll never have to talk to each other again, and the world will be a happy place
Probably the only thing I will ever agree with you on!!
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
Can I ask people to conduct themselves in a calm manner or risk the cooler - thank you
- Status