Roberto Mancini

[varmin]

I think the problem with Mazzari and Gasperini was that Moratti didn't realized that they are not for Inter. I mean, both of them have established style of play, based on 3 man defense. At Inter back then, we hadn't have the players good for these schemes and nobody (from our mngnmt) provided such a players to Mazzari and Gasp.
From other hand, Mancini had influence on our transfer market and he got players he insisted to. But he doesn't have any style or scheme, he's just relying on his players to do something on the pitch without clear plan.
For me Di Francesco has his style, but if we hire him, the management should take into account his demands about transfer market.

Some people insist to give more time to Mancini, cuz we have too many new players and it takes time for them to adapt. My question is: How to adapt, if the coach doesn't know what he wants and almost every game changes the scheme, players and players' positions?
This season so far, we have seen:
DD - CB, right-back, left-back
Brozo - DLP, CM, AM, sometimes even on the wings.
Perisic - wing-back, AM, left/right winger
Kondogbia, Melo, Medel - DM, box-to-box, CM
Ljajic - AM, SS,on the wings, sometimes even as CM.
Jovetic, Eder - AM, SS, on the wing as well.
Even Icardi got some weird instruction to move to the wings and to receive the ball there.

 

[Wings]

No, all of them are the same. I never said experienced, I said ptoven and I gave an example of Simeone. None of the one you mentioned are at the level of Simeone (maybe only Benitez).

I'm pretty sure that a while ago in one of my previous posts on a similar subject (I think it was my comment on rumors of Simeone coming to Inter) I mentioned all our coaches after Mourinho and I mentioned that we've been hiring unproven coaches after unproven coaches with no result and it's time we either keep our coach or go after someone like Simeone.

So the only coach you think is worth replacing Mancini with is someone on the level of Simeone...? That's ridiculous on so many levels.

 

[BasedGodPunk]

I'll take another year of Mancini as long as we make it clear he won't be extended after that. Also, we reach out to Simeone and see if we can find an agreement for 2017-18. If Mancini doesn't like it he can quit.

 

[Ronin]

So the only coach you think is worth replacing Mancini with is someone on the level of Simeone...? That's ridiculous on so many levels.

There are many variables that play into this. First of all, we can't really afford to fire Mancini, continue paying for him for another year and hire another coach (who would probably be paid quite a sum as well). Shit like this has been happening a lot for us ever since Mourinho left and it needs to stop.

Continuity is another solid point. All the coaches after Mourinho barely had any time to settle in properly and create a proper team. The players would benefit of not having a different coach every year as well.

Another point is the possible risk of getting an unproven coach or a coach that doesn't fit in well with our current players. That shit happened with Gasperini and Mazzarri as mentioned earlier and we should avoid it like plague. Di Francesco is known to have issues with sides that park the bus, something that we encounter almost every match so we have to be careful about it.

Getting someone like Simeone and Mourinho would be pretty good, but we'd still have to pay for Mancini for another year, granted he doesn't resign to go coach Italy or w/e. But at least we'd be getting proven coaches that can potentially work with our current squad with not too many changes.

 

[Ronaldo]

So the only coach you think is worth replacing Mancini with is someone on the level of Simeone...? That's ridiculous on so many levels.

Ronin has explained my point well but to add to what he said...

The coaches that we hired after Mourinho are not coaches for a team trying to become one of the best 10 teams in the world nor are coaches like Di Francesco, Martinez and other unproven coaches we've been linked to.

How many coaches have we hired after Mourinho? How many of them were good? Yes, it doesn't matter how many of the last coaches were shit, it doesn't mean the next one is going to be shit too but it's an indication. We've tried relatively unknown unproven coaches for so long and none of them has achieved what we wanted.

If we are looking to become on of the best 10 teams in the world, we need to hire one of the best 10 coaches in the world.

 

[wera]

We should keep Mancini only if we lower his wages by about 60%.

 

[Wings]

Annotated your post for clarity...

1) There are many variables that play into this. First of all, we can't really afford to fire Mancini, continue paying for him for another year and hire another coach (who would probably be paid quite a sum as well). Shit like this has been happening a lot for us ever since Mourinho left and it needs to stop.

2) Continuity is another solid point. All the coaches after Mourinho barely had any time to settle in properly and create a proper team. The players would benefit of not having a different coach every year as well.

3) Another point is the possible risk of getting an unproven coach or a coach that doesn't fit in well with our current players. That shit happened with Gasperini and Mazzarri as mentioned earlier and we should avoid it like plague. Di Francesco is known to have issues with sides that park the bus, something that we encounter almost every match so we have to be careful about it.

4) Getting someone like Simeone and Mourinho would be pretty good, but we'd still have to pay for Mancini for another year, granted he doesn't resign to go coach Italy or w/e. But at least we'd be getting proven coaches that can potentially work with our current squad with not too many changes.

1) Firing Mancini isn't worth if it his replacement would get us only five points higher. Firing Mancini could be worth it if his replacement would perform significantly better (for ex. by consistently qualifying for CL). I don't think it's correct to say that there is no scenario in which firing Mancini worth it. Clearly such a scenario exists.

2) Continuity is a moot point when Mancini himself doesn't practice continuity. Look at the players he bought in his first window. He replaced pretty much every single every one of them in the summer, then tried to replace some of those players (Jovetic/Ljajic w/Eder, Brozovic w/Soriano) this past winter, and indications are he will try the same for the summer. In terms of playing squad continuity, keeping Mancini is like getting a new coach every six months.

3) I agree. I argued this point exhaustively when Mazzarri was our coach. The ideal policy should be to evaluate how good of a fit a coach is for either or both A) our current squad B) the type of football we want to play. We didn't do that with Mazzarri. But Seyedo is saying that no coach who is inexperienced should be considered, regardless of whether or not his playing style is a good fit. I disagree. We are not in a position where we can hire a Simeone or Mourinho. Should Mancini continue to underperform, we have to take risks. There's no other option. We have to be assessing unproven options, because they are our only options.

The bottom line is that Seyedo thinks that an unproven coach is a near-guaranteed failure (like Gasperini). I think that an unproven coach could be a flop (Gasp again) or successful (Conte, Klopp). I don't know for sure whether an unexperienced coach would work out. (It would depend heavily on the specific coach). But I think it's narrow-minded to not even consider it.

4) I don't agree that proven coaches will work without too many changes. Big coaches demand big transfers. That's a simple fact. Why on earth would Simeone come here if he had to work with no transfers? Asking a proven coach to work with few changes would eliminate whatever small chance we would have of getting a proven coach in the first place.

Ronin has explained my point well but to add to what he said...

The coaches that we hired after Mourinho are not coaches for a team trying to become one of the best 10 teams in the world nor are coaches like Di Francesco, Martinez and other unproven coaches we've been linked to.

How many coaches have we hired after Mourinho? How many of them were good? Yes, it doesn't matter how many of the last coaches were shit, it doesn't mean the next one is going to be shit too but it's an indication. We've tried relatively unknown unproven coaches for so long and none of them has achieved what we wanted.

If we are looking to become on of the best 10 teams in the world, we need to hire one of the best 10 coaches in the world.

...and you think Mancini is one of the best 10 coaches in the world? Was Klopp a top 10 coach when he got hired by Dortmund? What about Conte? Or Simeone? Examples go on and on and on... Hiring experience is 1) not a guarantee of success 2) not a viable option for us anyway.

 

[Ronaldo]

No, Mancini in no means is a top coach but as I said earlier, we've improved under Mancini, very little but still improved so firing not only would put us in a worse situation financially, if we hire an unproven coach that usually (not certainly) as shown in last few year, would put us on year 0 again. Then the only thing we would've gained from his firing is the financial burden.

Klopp was a different case. Dortmund wasn't as big of a club as Inter and there wasn't as much pressure as there is at Inter. You might disagree, fair enough. But Dortmund's vision was completely a different one.

Our aim is that we want to make it to CL as soon as possible and we want immediate results. Our fans want immediate results. Dortmund's vision was to rely on younger players and grow the coach and players together.

Their system might be better but the thing is we don't have the time for it and nor the management or the fans have the patience for it.

Look, I might've failed at explaining myself properly but I think you can understand that the project that Dortmund had and the one that we have are completely different ones.

I just think that comparing Dortmund to Inter is just wrong. What worked over there doesn't mean could work over here. The environment, the expectations, the vision, the fans, all were completely different than what we curently have at Inter.

I give you Conte, yea Conte worked at Juve but again Inter is different. We tried it, didn't we? We saw how Guardiola did an amazing job at Barca and how Conte did well at Juve and thought Strama would probably do well at Inter too, but it turned out to be a complete failure.

Different teams have different systems. For every unproven coach that did well, there are 10 who did horribly. You might not agree with that, fair enough. But, how about isntead of looking at this team and that team, we look at our own history? We've been trying it for the past few years and it's not working so why now that we are seeing slight improvements, why should we risk hiring another coach that might not work like the previous ones?! As Einstein once said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results". Answer me this, when was the last time an unproven coach did well at Inter?

This I think could be because of two factors. Either the management is incompetent or just the environment at Inter doesn't suit unproven coaches. So either we hire a top-class coach or just fix the management.

 

[D-Sky]

It's all Ranieri's fault blivious:

In the first season of coaching a team like Leicester, he can make them as a champion contender.

We want a manager who can take us to be scudetto in his/her first year.

I know, it's nearly impossible,,, I'm just joking anyway.

 

[Wallace]

"Very little but still improved".

Same can be said Strama's first season, Mazzarri's first season.

Continuity of this minuscule improvement gets us no where.

His approach is basically as follows, judging from years of observation of his amazing managerial career. For every position in the team, randomize the player as to what's available in the market. If this season underperforms, randomize again, and randomize every season until we managed to reach a player who works well with the team.

This sort of continuity only drives us to bankruptcy.

But hey, we're only changing half the squad every season, we did that to reach our triplete year as well, so it must work every time we do it.

/rant

I'm honestly quite bored with Mancini.

 

[Armes]

Strama was a newb bewb and way too young. Now he's doing commentary?
Walter, with the team he had and all actually progressed. Reached the goal first season, and was only 5 points away from 3rd place when he got force-axed into the season. This mofo here is in his second season and with all the players he's got is tactically oblivious and won't reach CL. Fucking shame. 5 years and counting of no Champions League.

 

[Universe]

Annotated your post for clarity...



1) Firing Mancini isn't worth if it his replacement would get us only five points higher. Firing Mancini could be worth it if his replacement would perform significantly better (for ex. by consistently qualifying for CL). I don't think it's correct to say that there is no scenario in which firing Mancini worth it. Clearly such a scenario exists.

2) Continuity is a moot point when Mancini himself doesn't practice continuity. Look at the players he bought in his first window. He replaced pretty much every single every one of them in the summer, then tried to replace some of those players (Jovetic/Ljajic w/Eder, Brozovic w/Soriano) this past winter, and indications are he will try the same for the summer. In terms of playing squad continuity, keeping Mancini is like getting a new coach every six months.

3) I agree. I argued this point exhaustively when Mazzarri was our coach. The ideal policy should be to evaluate how good of a fit a coach is for either or both A) our current squad B) the type of football we want to play. We didn't do that with Mazzarri. But Seyedo is saying that no coach who is inexperienced should be considered, regardless of whether or not his playing style is a good fit. I disagree. We are not in a position where we can hire a Simeone or Mourinho. Should Mancini continue to underperform, we have to take risks. There's no other option. We have to be assessing unproven options, because they are our only options.

The bottom line is that Seyedo thinks that an unproven coach is a near-guaranteed failure (like Gasperini). I think that an unproven coach could be a flop (Gasp again) or successful (Conte, Klopp). I don't know for sure whether an unexperienced coach would work out. (It would depend heavily on the specific coach). But I think it's narrow-minded to not even consider it.

4) I don't agree that proven coaches will work without too many changes. Big coaches demand big transfers. That's a simple fact. Why on earth would Simeone come here if he had to work with no transfers? Asking a proven coach to work with few changes would eliminate whatever small chance we would have of getting a proven coach in the first place.



...and you think Mancini is one of the best 10 coaches in the world? Was Klopp a top 10 coach when he got hired by Dortmund? What about Conte? Or Simeone? Examples go on and on and on... Hiring experience is 1) not a guarantee of success 2) not a viable option for us anyway.

Watch out everyone, there's a Korean rapist on the loose.

Jokes on you though, I'm not referring to Wings' amazing and well delivered arguments, but to myself, climbing through your windows at night, wearing your mum's underwear and shit.

 

[Ronin]

1) Firing Mancini isn't worth if it his replacement would get us only five points higher. Firing Mancini could be worth it if his replacement would perform significantly better (for ex. by consistently qualifying for CL). I don't think it's correct to say that there is no scenario in which firing Mancini worth it. Clearly such a scenario exists.

2) Continuity is a moot point when Mancini himself doesn't practice continuity. Look at the players he bought in his first window. He replaced pretty much every single every one of them in the summer, then tried to replace some of those players (Jovetic/Ljajic w/Eder, Brozovic w/Soriano) this past winter, and indications are he will try the same for the summer. In terms of playing squad continuity, keeping Mancini is like getting a new coach every six months.

3) I agree. I argued this point exhaustively when Mazzarri was our coach. The ideal policy should be to evaluate how good of a fit a coach is for either or both A) our current squad B) the type of football we want to play. We didn't do that with Mazzarri. But Seyedo is saying that no coach who is inexperienced should be considered, regardless of whether or not his playing style is a good fit. I disagree. We are not in a position where we can hire a Simeone or Mourinho. Should Mancini continue to underperform, we have to take risks. There's no other option. We have to be assessing unproven options, because they are our only options.

The bottom line is that Seyedo thinks that an unproven coach is a near-guaranteed failure (like Gasperini). I think that an unproven coach could be a flop (Gasp again) or successful (Conte, Klopp). I don't know for sure whether an unexperienced coach would work out. (It would depend heavily on the specific coach). But I think it's narrow-minded to not even consider it.

4) I don't agree that proven coaches will work without too many changes. Big coaches demand big transfers. That's a simple fact. Why on earth would Simeone come here if he had to work with no transfers? Asking a proven coach to work with few changes would eliminate whatever small chance we would have of getting a proven coach in the first place.

1) I agree, however my point remains. We can't know if Mancini's replacement will only improve us by 5 points or will qualify us for Champions League consistently over the upcoming years. That's why I'm more inclined to accept a proven coach instead of others.

2) That's a good point, that's why I've said it before that the coach shouldn't have as much power on the transfer market as Mancini. Anyway I don't think the management is going to give him the chance of replacing every single player like he did last summer because he has built the majority of the team. Handanovic, Murillo, Miranda, Kondogbia, Brozovic, Perisic, Icardi. They are all great players and here to stay (unless we have to sell because finances and shit). 5 of them are Mancini's transfers.

3) Yes, an unproven coach could definitely work but we have to prepare for the risks if that coach fails. Are we really prepared to potentially spend another 2-5 years in obscurity? Most people here expect Inter to qualify for Champions League every season and every season that we don't is a failure by the management, staff and players.

4) Obviously a big coach is going to ask for big players but my point was that a proven coach has more chance to get the most of our current players, a majority who are pretty damn decent already. They just lack direction, something which Mancini is showing he is terrible at.

In the end, this discussion comes down to whether the fans and the management are ready to take the risk with an unproven coach and potentially risk another couple of years of 'new project' and 'year 0'.

I really dislike Mancini and I wish we could get a better replacement, but we absolutely can not replace Mancini for the sake of replacing Mancini. The management needs to analyze potential coaches thoroughly and get the best coach they can get.

 

[AndyRamone]

l.p.q.l.p.

 

[Jerry]

How do the haters reconcile this quote from Shaq with the claim that Mancini doesn't employ attacking tactics?

"I found it very difficult, because Mancini was constantly changing formation and I eventually came to the conclusion that I’d be better off with a change of scenery."

Link Here: Shaqiri: ‘Difficult at Inter’

 

[kameru]

Actually after reading many Mancini commentary about the game, and many player that coach by him I came to conclusion that Mancini actually didn't act/ see himself as a coach/ manager but as a non playing veteran player.

He never give instruction, because he expect his teammate to know what they suppose to do. And if his teammate dont know what to do, he will dissapointed to the point that he wont play with that player/ them again. So at this point, he think the team must try another system or even another player till it works. If it works, he will be happy and keep it till broken. And the cycle start again..

 

[JJM]

For Mancini 100x100 is a Million and then 100000 not 10000...

That would explain a lot

Football players and coaches are morons

http://www.iene.mediaset.it/puntate...ciatori-all’esame-di-5a-elementare_9927.shtml

 

[Ronin]

Who were those 2 Inter players that didn't even stop? Kinda dickish.

 

[Sokrates]

PSG wants him

 

[Dylan]

Pastore + 6 million.