For those that don't, can someone briefly summarize each main arguments?!
From what I understood; the guy who is talking very loud basically is criticizing Mancini a lot. Stating that a good coach would after 2 years leave a team behind that has a certain mental level, gameplan, tactics etc. but Mancini left a shitty team behind. So de Boer inherited a team that is shitty...mentally and tactically..
Mancini brought in players that he didnt even utilize, and he also talks about his hard on for Melo. He compares him with coach like Guardiola, Ancelotti etc, to show how they leave a team behind once they leave.
He also says that Mancini sucks because the scudettos before were just because 1)That team was really good (had Ibra etc) and 2) we had no competition and bought the best guys from our direct competitors (vieira, Ibra) etc. So he's saying that Mancini in that sense didnt really do shit.
Conte on the other hand became champions after a year, with a squad that was way less than Milan's squad for example. Conte had a vision, tactic etc. thats how a coach should be.
---------------------------(feel free to correct me if any of it was wrong---------------------
So yeah, basically I completely agree with the dude, since whoever comes after a coach like that, is dealing with a shitty, non motivated, mentally weak, and lacking any form of tactical intelligence players...
And to clean that mess, you cant just throw money at it and a new coach every couple of months.
Edit: if someone can summarize the other's arguments, that would be great. This is how far I got with my non-italian knowledge and freestyling other Roman languages that I do know