Man City

[M4TTA]

Stuart Pearce was seen by a lot of people as a good, up and coming English manager who could do well.

Sacked last year and Erikson took over, a man who many hated due to the national manager link.

 

Now, he's (Erikson) has made some fairly big signings in the summer (when you think what past managers has made?) and has done very well in the league so far and in the cup.

 

Now, the stem of the team is what's been inherited. Would Pearce have made the same impact or is Erikson that good of a manager at club level (clearly wasn't great at international level)

 

Just got me thinking that's all, i'd like to know what Anny Rd thinks? I know his mate was there last year, don't recall if any move happened or what the feel is in the camp if ste is still there.

 

I think City could do quite well this year...

[Hassony]

pearce spent 6m on samaras, need i say more

[R A Softlad]

s*** player good Scrabble score.

[fyds]

s*** player good Scrabble score.

All those '1's?

[_00_deathscar]

All those '1's?

 

Softlad struggles with words...

[John am Rhein]

Eriksson's one of the best managers in the League. This was clear long before he was in the England job.

 

Pearce is basically a no mark.

[_00_deathscar]

Pearce is basically a no mark.

 

Naturally . . . he's English.

[Rimbeux]

He's been a top manager near everywhere he's been, but made a few enemies in the media whilst in the England job, some who never accepted the fact he was an outsider.

 

The England situation was complicated, he didn't do a bad job at all, but made mistakes and was seduced by hype around many of the players and trying to find a concensus over the most functional team, so they could have done better. He tried to solve the traditional fear of failure that has infected the national team through history by creating safe environment, but it all crept back in when it counted.

 

None (or very few) of his detractors in the press were able to get past personal attacks and cliche and nonsense about negative tactics and plan Bs.

 

He's so far ahead of Pearce it's not worth comparison.

[The walters step over]

Stuart Pearce was seen by a lot of people as a good, up and coming English manager who could do well.

Sacked last year and Erikson took over, a man who many hated due to the national manager link.

 

Now, he's (Erikson) has made some fairly big signings in the summer (when you think what past managers has made?) and has done very well in the league so far and in the cup.

 

Now, the stem of the team is what's been inherited. Would Pearce have made the same impact or is Erikson that good of a manager at club level (clearly wasn't great at international level)

 

Just got me thinking that's all, i'd like to know what Anny Rd thinks? I know his mate was there last year, don't recall if any move happened or what the feel is in the camp if ste is still there.

 

I think City could do quite well this year...

 

I don't see how you can say he was a bad England manager,under Sven we qualified pretty easily and were penalties away from reaching the semis of the two biggest comps - Then who knows what might have happened? Under mcClaren we're about to be dumped out at the qualifying stage with largely no difference in the two squads.

 

I know that could be proof of McClarens shytness but it's probably proof that Eriksson wasn't as bad as he's made out.

[John am Rhein]

Naturally . . . he's English.

 

But it's worse than that, he's cr@p jim!

[John am Rhein]

He's been a top manager near everywhere he's been, but made a few enemies in the media whilst in the England job, some who never accepted the fact he was an outsider.

 

The England situation was complicated, he didn't do a bad job at all, but made mistakes and was seduced by hype around many of the players and trying to find a concensus over the most functional team, so they could have done better. He tried to solve the traditional fear of failure that has infected the national team through history by creating safe environment, but it all crept back in when it counted.

 

None (or very few) of his detractors in the press were able to get past personal attacks and cliche and nonsense about negative tactics and plan Bs.

 

The press don't have a clue and their views shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever (although clearly they do).

 

I think what happened with Eriksson is that he was going through the motions for the last 12-24 months he spent in the England job because he knew he wasn't going to be continuing in it after WM 2006.

[John am Rhein]

I know that could be proof of McClarens shytness but it's probably proof that Eriksson wasn't as bad as he's made out.

 

Eriksson's successful career is easily proof enough.

 

And, of course, McLaren is sh*te. Quite likely to go down as the worst manager England ever had. Certainly his record prior to getting the job would suggest that.

[M4TTA]

I don't see how you can say he was a bad England manager,under Sven we qualified pretty easily and were penalties away from reaching the semis of the two biggest comps - Then who knows what might have happened? Under mcClaren we're about to be dumped out at the qualifying stage with largely no difference in the two squads.

 

I know that could be proof of McClarens shytness but it's probably proof that Eriksson wasn't as bad as he's made out.

 

 

ok fair point. He wasn't bad, but some would say he should have done better with the squad of people he had to his disposal.

Although i dont want to turn this into an England job bashing or anything.

 

A guess what we are seeing is a functional unit then before! It's also nice to see Didi getting some games, and getting the praise for it too