The Next Manager?

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

5 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

Pellegrini aint that bad as people point out; probably two PLs in 3 seasons, done wonders at Malaga and Villareal. Even Rm season wasnt as bad. 

Tho I dont fancy him here, he is still good manager.

Sampaoli I think is first choice by board. Simeone is hard to get but Sampaoli is free now. It also makes sense with Terry situation because Sampaoli plays high pressing line and Terry has no place there even as a sub. But Sampaoli never coached in europe and his managing of defensive tactics could be worrying at least. 

I'd love to see Sampaoli, as it would be exciting to bring in something completely different.  My only concern is that I don't know what he's like in bringing through youth.  With the new stadium, I think we'll have to lean on the academy.  This is why I slightly favour Potchettino.

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

Neat article on Atletico Madrid's defending if anyone is interested:  http://statsbomb.com/2016/02/atletico-madrid-without-the-ball/

 

 

[Spike 12,049]

19 hours ago, It's too big said:

What is the high on Simeone, though? He is way too similar to Mourinho in tactics and, i for one, do not like that style of play. I want us playing nice football, not defending against the big boys and getting red cards every other game. Simeone's Atletico are way too thug like in their approach at times and it's not something i am personally a fan of; if you are then fair enough. 

I was once  crazy drunk in Brisbane city and I caught a cab home. The driver was a Hungarian immigrant, a very old one at that. He grew up watching Puskas and the likes play for Real Madrid so he was fond of the club. I remember he said to me about the Atleti v Barcelona match "Atletico won but they kicked lumps in all the players. The moment a Bacelona player had the ball, they were all over him and kicking him into oblivion. That isn't proper football!"

 

[Spike 12,049]

7 hours ago, manpe said:

Pellegrini is fucking boring, why would anybody want him? Without wikipedia I wouldn't even say he's younger than Hiddink.

Because the manager's personality is irrelevant? Because he is actually a good coach that makes his team play sexy football?

[manpe 10,861]

33 minutes ago, Spike said:

Because the manager's personality is irrelevant? Because he is actually a good coach that makes his team play sexy football?

Subjective. Football is entertainment for me, so it's not totally irrelevant, I would prefer somebody who doesn't bore me to sleep when speaking.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

Sampaoli would be ideal, but seeing this is not possible, then Pellegrini is a no brainer for me. 

 

[manpe 10,861]

27 minutes ago, petre.ispirescu said:

Sampaoli would be ideal, but seeing this is not possible

How come?

[ZOS 580]

we hire pelegrini, we can forget about winning anything... top four wont be guaranteed either. Chelsea is in such a deep shit right now.. so sad

[Costa19 858]

What kind of sexy football is City playing under Pelle?

I never watch them play and i havent heard anything about how superb and sexy their football is, beside reading some posts here.. 

[Cosmin 2,484]

Pellegrini is a decent manager. His record is great and City were always a very positive team under him. Way better than under Mancini anyways. I don't understand why people hate him so much. I wouldn't say no to the guy, he's decent after all. And he's a gentleman. Remember when our beloved Mourinho was leading 1-0 against "Pellegrino" on Etihad, we parked the bus even though it was 10 vs. 11, but "Pellegrino" didn't give up and the game finished 1-1? Well, that's that attitude that I'd like to see at Chelsea. 

You can say that he could've done better at City, but you can't say that his team was not entertaining or a lot more attractive to watch than Mourinho's Chelsea. Not to mention his achievements at Malaga specially. He almost took them to the UCL semifinals. Malaga, people. 

I invite you to read this article. Nice stats.

[Pizy 18,877]

Pellegrini being boring is precisely why he's seemingly a leading candidate. Roman and the board have to be sick of their manager getting negative headlines and having outbursts in the media. In Pellegrini they'll have a classy, dignified, soft spoken manager who doesn't do or say anything controversial.

If Simeone or Pochettino are absolutely impossible then I'd reluctantly accept Pellegrini. Assuming we give him a whole bunch of money to spend in order to keep up with our rivals.

[Cosmin 2,484]

5 minutes ago, Pizy said:

Pellegrini being boring is precisely why he's seemingly a leading candidate. Roman and the board have to be sick of their manager getting negative headlines and having outbursts in the media. In Pellegrini they'll have a classy, dignified, soft spoken manager who doesn't do or say anything controversial.

 

Spot on! And I 100% agree with Roman and the board, if that's what they're thinking. 

[Jase 43,479]

23 hours ago, Fernando said:

Yeah but United make more money the City hence more buying power. World brand as well where players would rather come there then City.

United would have been by the far the easiest job me thinks.

(1) So what if United make more money than City? You talk as if City are owned by some stingy owner. This is a side who have spent billions to build a quality, competitive side over the years and last summer alone, they spent nearly 100m on just two players.

(2) Having a top class manager at a club is just as important as the brand of the club, if not more. With Guardiola, who is regarded by many as the world's best manager, now heading to City, you think they wouldn't be a strong attraction for players to join them? On top of that, United are neither here nor there at the moment. You have a clueless Ed Woodward running the club and and an equally clueless Van Gaal managing the team, a team who is playing dull football and getting nowhere near in challenging for the top honours. City have the better structure and squad to do that, as proved by the fact that they are still competing in all four competitions.

22 hours ago, Henrique said:

United have big money, biggest club in the world alongside Real Madrid, they are respected and they would survive if Guardiola was a failure. To other side, this is the chance City have to upgrade their status. Guardiola can't afford to be failure. City squad is good, but as I said, they are a joke in Europe, their PL record last season was average at best. If City job is as easy as you think, I wonder why they are not rulling PL for fun or doing great in Europe. City is way harder than Bayern job. 

Let's not exaggerate things here. Yes, this is the chance for City to get to the next level, to be really among the elites but even if Guardiola fails, which would seem unlikely, they would still be a top side in England and Europe. They won't just disappear from the map. You said United have big money. What about City? They don't? And sure, United are respected but let's not act if the squad is filled top class players because it isn't. They are a mess and you can practically count on one hand the number of top class players they have while the same thing can't be said about City, who have more and better quality players than United. City failing in Europe and doing average-ly in the Premier League has more gotta do with their current manager. Put someone Mourinho or even Fergie in charge of that, they would be dominating the league and even Europe because with the squad that they have, there's no way they should be inconsistent and giving other teams a chance to win trophies, especially domestically. You would be lying if you have never thought or said City have the best squad in England.

[Spike 12,049]

8 hours ago, manpe said:

Subjective. Football is entertainment for me, so it's not totally irrelevant, I would prefer somebody who doesn't bore me to sleep when speaking.

 

The manager talking isn't football, the manager talking is just an interview. The football his team plays is incredibly entertaining. 

[Fernando 6,585]

1 hour ago, Jason said:

(1) So what if United make more money than City? You talk as if City are owned by some stingy owner. This is a side who have spent billions to build a quality, competitive side over the years and last summer alone, they spent nearly 100m on just two players.

(2) Having a top class manager at a club is just as important as the brand of the club, if not more. With Guardiola, who is regarded by many as the world's best manager, now heading to City, you think they wouldn't be a strong attraction for players to join them? On top of that, United are neither here nor there at the moment. You have a clueless Ed Woodward running the club and and an equally clueless Van Gaal managing the team, a team who is playing dull football and getting nowhere near in challenging for the top honours. City have the better structure and squad to do that, as proved by the fact that they are still competing in all four competitions.

Let's not exaggerate things here. Yes, this is the chance for City to get to the next level, to be really among the elites but even if Guardiola fails, which would seem unlikely, they would still be a top side in England and Europe. They won't just disappear from the map. You said United have big money. What about City? They don't? And sure, United are respected but let's not act if the squad is filled top class players because it isn't. They are a mess and you can practically count on one hand the number of top class players they have while the same thing can't be said about City, who have more and better quality players than United. City failing in Europe and doing average-ly in the Premier League has more gotta do with their current manager. Put someone Mourinho or even Fergie in charge of that, they would be dominating the league and even Europe because with the squad that they have, there's no way they should be inconsistent and giving other teams a chance to win trophies, especially domestically. You would be lying if you have never thought or said City have the best squad in England.

Well you got look at the squad, and it ain't that great as Barcelona or Bayern.

Not to mention they will have to spend big to build a good defense and midfield. Apart from the their attack they need a lot of work in those other areas.

And your also talking like if City is going to spend 100m each transfer window. You still need to take into account that FFP are still there in europe and FA. United still holds the cards far above any other team because of the income they generate.

Now if you say that City makes money then so a lot of teams in the PL because of the TV money.

For me I still don't see the "easy job" your talking about. He needs to rebuild just like United and Chelsea need to do. The only easy job right now is Arsenal as they have a really competitive squad. If anyone is under performing is Wenger.