Manchester City have come a long way from being a relative unknown in third division English football to a club that’s today a serious title contender in the Premier League.
The have amassed tremendous fan following in recent years, culminating with their stupendous EPL triumph in 2012 after a period of nearly 45 years.
With success come expectations and responsibility, and if there’s one blemish on their resume, it’s failing to live up to their billing in Europe.
With a stuttering start to this season’s Champions League competition, City was knocked out in the group stage last year and also failed to leave an impression in the two Europa League campaigns prior to that.
So what could be the reason behind City’s string of poor results in Europe? They seem to have a luxury of talent in the form of Aguero, Toure, Balotelli, and Zabaleta, to name a few, but one of the prime reasons for their failings is coach Roberto Mancini.
It’s hard to explain why a coach of Mancini’s calibre struggles to dominate in Europe, because City has done exceptionally well against the big teams in the Premier League. They demolished Manchester United 6-1 away from home, but labored against Napoli, for instance, in the Champions League last season.
Let’s face it – throughout his managerial career, Mancini has had a dismal string of results in Europe.
As manager of Inter Milan, he led the team to league success but failed in the knockout rounds of the Champions League competition; this being one of the prime reasons why he was sacked by the club.
If you look at the players in their ranks, Toure (with Barcelona), Aguero (Europa League with Atletico Madrid) and Tevez (with United) have won competitions in Europe, so it’s unfair to put down the failings of City to lack of experience on the pitch.
To add to the argument, Mancini failed to win the Champions League with Inter Milan, despite having several experienced players in the squad and ultimately, it took a certain ‘Special One’ to guide them to Champions League glory the following year in 2010.
So clearly, Mancini seems to be missing the plot.
Here’s a man who has stated that City can win the competition if they progress to the next stage, but to be assembled in a group with the likes of Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund and Ajax in this season’s competition only makes the task harder for Mancini, who finds himself under the pump yet again after a narrow loss to Madrid and a draw with Dortmund after match day two.
Does this imply that Mancini lacks the expertise necessary to make his team stand out in the Champions League competition, which is a totally different ball game?
Or does this mean City can win club football’s elite competition only with a different manager?
jinesh
Guest
well i guess its down to mancini...he had a bad track record at inter n i guess the same wil continue here..i thnk he s missin some piece tactically in the whole puzzle.. as u said cant doubt the players..but is it down to temperament on the whole? im sure tat wil get him out of city as well..or his achilles heel as its said..he has got some gud thngs to city but i hav never been a huge fan of his tactical ability...
Disco
Roar Guru
Well, a cynic might suggest that it wasn't down to Mancini's expertise that City are even in the Champions League. We'll get a better idea of his standing come this season's end.
k77sujith
Guest
Yes it takes time but could Mancini be one of the reasons? His record isn't so good in Europe.
Disco
Roar Guru
It takes time to learn how to be effective in Europe, so I'm not surprised Man City are having some difficulty with it, being newcomers at Europe's top table.
Disco
Roar Guru
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest Chelsea aren't well-supported in relation to most clubs. I was just pointing out that its supporter base hasn't surged to match that of, say, Arsenal's or Spurs', even though it's been eight years since Abramovich came on the scene. No club has the non-localised support of ManU, but Arsenal have a much bigger London following than Chelsea which goes back many decades, independent of success in the modern era. Likewise, Man City's support has very little to do with its climb from Div 3 and last year's title.
k77sujith
Guest
I do admit that I might have gone wrong with my opening statement. At the same time, I'm astounded how so many of you are ready to pounce on it and harp on it endlessly. I guess like they say, its human nature to have fun at the expense of someone else's error :). Now I know what your responses are going to be based on what I've just said as well. Anyway, coming back to this piece, what do you reckon about Mancini and City in Europe?
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
I take it that you've never visited West London then? Despite their close proximity to QPR and Fulham, and even Brentford, Chelsea are pretty well supported in that locale. Granted they may not have the huge non-localised support that Man United, Liverpool, or even Arsenal can boast (although they do better than most teams), but if you speak to most Chelsea fans they'd probably be quite happy to not attract so many glory-seekers.
HardcorePrawn
Roar Guru
Spot on Neos (and Roger too), I sprayed tea all over my monitor and keyboard when I saw that opening line. I fear that the author of this piece has fallen into the trap of believing that the Premier League is all, and anything below doesn't matter. Man City have never been an "unknown", and even when they were in the third tier they still attracted the sort of media coverage in England that surpassed that of some of the then Premier League clubs.
Disco
Roar Guru
Of course there's bound to be a surge, but the club can count on a glut of fans that have been there for decades. A worthwhile comparison is Chelsea, which for all of Abramovich's money and subsequent trophies, still doesn't have such a strong supporter base.
k77sujith
Guest
Yes Disco and with the cash has come big name players and subsequent success. While people might think City followers are glory hunters..doesn't a club's fandom surge with success? Thanks.
Disco
Roar Guru
Indeed. What they've amassed is cash, thanks to super-rich backers.
k77sujith
Guest
Alright, noted your observations and tips. Will be more careful henceforth. Thanks.
neos osmos
Guest
No. The point here is when you use an historical opening to a contemporary piece, get the facts right. A better way to start it would have been to point out that Man City have returned to their former glory days; only this time it's different due to the influx of cash.
k77sujith
Guest
Alright Neos, agreed it's a dumb opening but the point is that the club's overall outlook and profile has skyrocketed in recent years with the influx of cash. Also, they weren't even considered challengers for the big prize. Let's not forget that the question here is about whether they can go on to improve their performances in Europe..the future and not the past.
neos osmos
Guest
k77suijth. Dumb opening. City got larger crowds in the third than some top tier clubs were getting at the time. Roger Rational is correct and your response is inadequate.
k77sujith
Guest
Agreed Roger but they didn't have the status they have now and while they were a decent side then, today, they have the potential to beat any team. Blip or no blip, they did enter the third division. Thanks.
Roger Rational
Guest
"Manchester City have come a long way from being a relative unknown in third division English football to a club that’s today a serious title contender in the Premier League. The have amassed tremendous fan following in recent years, culminating with their stupendous EPL triumph in 2012 after a period of nearly 45 years". City have never been a relative unknown and have always had a tremendous fan following. Judged on their entire history, their relegation to the third division was a blip.