Hart had made the most saves out of any keeper that year when on loan at Birmingham!
I :wub: Joe
Are Manchester City really a one man team?
- Thread starter SThompson93
- Start date
- Replies 26
- Views 2K
I :wub: Joe
He was the best goalkeeper that year in the premierleague. I coudln't understand for the life of me why Capello went with that Carrol at the world cup.
He did, yeah.
Mourinho didn't even have any interest in him from PL clubs until he won the Champions League.. So you can say all that in hindsight but at the time nobody would have even brought him up.
Ranieri was manager for 1 year which is less than the 18 months Hughes spent at City.. So, yeah.
Agreed with the Jose comment most definately! I guess I just dont like Ranieiri at all, never have!
But what I mean exactly is that City are going to bring in success alot earlier than it took Chelsea to get going! The FA Cup last year already.. One of many unforutunately in the future! United's days are numbered....
City just need a good clear out of fringe players and buy astutely and wisely they could be the best team in the world in 3-5 years is what I am saying
I dont agree at all... Roman bought the club in June 2003 and we already had Jose winning the PLM and the League cup in the 2004-05 season, I dont see how you can constitute one year being a big gap between getting the money and getting a good manager considering Manchester City had to wait 18 months before getting Mancini
Plus we achieved success pretty early after getting the money as shown above whilst Manchester City were bought by Sheik Mansour in August 2008 and as of now, have yet to achieve PLM success so your point that Manchester City will taste success sooner than Chelsea is also voided
So quite frankly, I am in a bit of a bewilderment as to what you have based your points on
Last edited:
I just don't understand. Ranieri bought average players.. So did Hughes.
Chelsea finished 2nd under Ranieri and 1st, twice, under Mourinho in their first three years under Abramovich.
Man City so far have finished 10th, 5th and 3rd under Mancini and the Sheik.
So, no, they will not get success earlier than Chelsea, they've already had their early years..
Of course they have the potential to be one of the best teams in the world.. But, eventually the owners will get bored of spending like Abramovich has and will expect them to start making money. They seriously need to pull something out of the bag this year [CL out of the window so looks like the PL] if they don't then they have massively failed.
Eventually the club will need to get financially stable just like Chelsea have began to move towards in recent times although knowing how deep the Sheik's pockets are, it may be some time before he decides to make the club financially sustainable
Also I cant understand how anyone can call Mancini a better manager than Mourinho...
A) Mourinho has won trophies in 4 different countries and he did them in his first season at the respective clubs mind
B) Mourinho has won the Champions League with two different teams, Mancini has not done it once
C) One can argue that Mourinho had money to spend at all his clubs but so did Mancini, difference is Mourinho won back-to-back PLMs and a league cup in his first two seasons, Mancini won one FA Cup in his first two seasons
Need i say more?