I orginally tried to write this article as a response to a post on another bloggers website but "technical difficulties" prevented its publication! One of the favourite moans amongst the whingers this year has been that Mancini's footballing mentality is contrary to the principles of Manchester City - which are considered to be free-flowing loose football. In the particular blog I was reading, Mancini's tactics were described as being the catenaccio of 1960s Italian football. The catenaccio was a system based almost entirely on defence - usually four man-marking defenders covered by a sweeper, with two strictly sitting central midfielders and the remaining three players (two midfielders and one striker) charged with producing goals on the break.
Modern variations on the catenaccio do still exist today - usually employed by heavy underdogs, such as Greece at the Euro's in 2004, as a means of damage limitation with the scant chance of success. However people want to dress it up, Mancini's style is hardly the catenaccio. In Italy, which you could say doesn't mean too much, Mancini is considered an attacking and adventurous manager, known for employing flair players and going for goals. So, although we probably shouldn't expect a Barca-esque style transformation next season, it is still too early to judge Mancini until he can build a team based on his footballing philosophy (whatever that may be).
People were happy to excuse Hughes endlessly at the beginning of his reign at City with "well, it isn't his squad, it isn't how he would want to play", yet the same doesn't seem to be afforded to Mancini. Arguably, the premature sacking of Hughes has created a culture around the club that demands instant success, even if you have only had a couple of months in the job. You only have to look at our fellow rich club QPR to see how quickly this culture of instability can take hold - as Neil Warnock becomes their fifth manager of the season. People talk about a defensive style disrupting the principles of Manchester City Football Club, but it is this impatient, expectant City fan that I don't recognise. I think it would be an absolute disgrace if Mancini was forced out after six months in charge and it would leave the club in a far worse position than if he were to stay and be able to develop a team of his own.
Not to forget, since he came in he hasn't had the full attacking options at his disposal - there have been absences for Adebayor, Tevez, Bellamy, Petrov, Santa Cruz and SWP (who, according to Ian Wright, The Wise, has been injured since December). For a good part of his time here, Mancini has been working with what he has left rather than picking from the whole.
Another interesting point here is the concept of the 'Italian Manager'. It is an enduring stereotype that all Italian managers will take a clean-sheet before a goal, but just a swift look around the English leagues: we have Capello, Ancelotti, Zola, Di Matteo - all of whom play an attacking brand of football - and Mancini was considered an attacking manager amongst these in Italy. Whether this proves to be true or not, I think it is only fair that Mancini, at least, gets a chance to make a team of his own.
Upon Mancini's appointment most City fans would have agreed his main challenge was to shore up an erratic defence. Within days, with threadbare options available to him, Mancini achieved this - not conceding a goal in his first three games. This being the most important improvement in the push for a Champions League place is now also the main complaint - if Mancini hears or reads any of the grumbles against him, he must be wondering exactly how much is expected of him and a club, who finished tenth in the league last season, who are well on course for setting all their premiership records.
No comments:
Post a Comment