Mails: Man City are just a lot nicer…

Date published: Monday 7th September 2015 3:28

For a club with an awful lot of money, there’s a whole lot of love for Manchester City. We also have fanmail for Dave, who thinks Brendan is the equal of LVG…

If you have anything to say on any subject, mail us at

City Are Not Hated…But They Will Be
Andy, Cheshire asked what other supporters think of Manchester City in the morning Mailbox.

Personally, I think Manchester City have a fair amount of goodwill from other fans at the moment, it will of course change in the near future as a lot of that goodwill is based around the fact they aren’t dominating anything.

They do very well in the league and are perennial challengers but they do it playing football neutrals want to watch. Manchester United and Chelsea, the most hated clubs (most hated fans are Liverpool or my fellow Arsenal fans) always challenge playing a really poor to watch brand of football. Even now after buying some very attacking and skillful players Manchester United still resort to lumping it up to Fellaini.

City don’t dominate in Europe, they crumble and fail miserably for the most part. Failure is endearing, it shows you’re human even if you can chuck 60 Million at a player on a whim.

They don’t even dominate the cups, man for man they have had one of the best squads for years, but over 90 minutes they are fallible.

Last but not least…they gave us one of the best Premier League moments ever…AGUEROOOOOOOO!

Enjoy it whilst it lasts City fans, because all the new glory-hunting kid fans you have gained will grow up knowing nothing but success and they will be the same as the entitled Liverpool fans from the 90s, the unbearable fans of United from the turn of the century and the most recent d*ckhead Chelsea fans from recent times.

You will be hated as sure as night follows day.
Luca James, AFC

City: Just Nicer
Why don’t Man City get more criticism? I think it’s for five main reasons.

1. It’s refreshing for fans of clubs outside of the historic big names of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal etc. to see someone else winning.
2. Their managers are pleasant and not obnoxious (Mourinho, Ferguson, Van Gaal) or full of philosophical codswallop (Van Gaal again, Rodgers).
3. They seem to be committed to investing in Manchester as a city and to the long-term sustainable development of the club and talent.
4. That Aguerooooo moment that they can dine out on for a few more years yet.
5. Most importantly (unlike some teams) their fans haven’t forgotten their time in the lower tiers and just seem very grateful to be where they are today (and are having fun with it).

It’s true that money is spoiling many aspects of football in terms of damaging competition and prima donna attitudes in some players but, even as a Liverpool fan myself, there is much to respect about Man City.
Colin (money is not a problem, loving it too much is), Hampshire

Big Four Feelings…
Andy Cheshire got me me thinking about how I view the ‘big four’…

Arsenal – Well-ran, good manager and play lovely football. Give youth a chance and I love a tortured artist. To me Wenger is a tortured artist. He knows his demons but rather than seek help he embraces them. My personal choice for the title if I had any say so in where it goes.

City – I like City, I like them a lot. There manager favours attacking exciting football which is always a a plus. The fans would be my pick of the top four, they rarely can be heard booing and represent the majority of fans who are just happy to see their team win and don’t attack the keyboard in defeat (yes Liverpool fans, it is a dig).

Chelsea – I like Mourinho to be honest. The big games, especially in Europe always bring out his best. If he and Wenger formed a love child (s)he’d rule the world. JT may be a bit of twat but I’d love him if he wore black and white on a Saturday. Their transfer approach may get some abuse this window but Mourinho has showed he ain’t just a cheque book gaffer since returning to England. Has been very shrewd indeed overall.

Man U – I just don’t like them. I don’t even have a valid reason so I wont try to explain myself. I do like the look of Memphis tho.

Liver… Just kidding.
Paul, NUFC
Smalling > Otamendi
‘There is a massive weakness at centre-half (they have five and none of them would make City’s first team) and one at centre-forward. And that is why they are currently 16/1.’

Sarah Winterburn claims none of the United CBs would make City’s squad?

– Smalling would be on top of the pecking order of City’s save Kompany.

– Demichelis is the direct swap for Kompany; Mangala looks like he’s found his feet but consistency is still a doubt; Otamendi is new.

– Darmian would put both of City’s right-backs to the test, Sagna’s good going forward, I don’t think he’s been tested much on his defending so far. Zabaleta has been one of the best right-backs but has not been himself since the final of the last World Cup.

– Shaw/Blind would all be in front of Kolorov and Clichy if you were looking for a stable back four.

– De Gea over Hart any time based on consistency of last year’s form.

Sarah’s bang on about City being the title favourites but it’s much to do with retaining the spine/core of the team and getting everything playing at the same gear. City were affected hard by world cup last year.
Surya (MUFC) Malaysia

Brendan In Same List As Van Gaal? Shush
Do yourself a favour, and head over to Wikipedia for a minute. If you could then do a search for ‘Louis Van Gaal’, and pop down to the section on his page entitled ‘Managerial Honours, and make note of what you see there. If you could then do the same for Rafael Benitez, and then Brendan Rodgers, that’d be great.

I have no issue with your dividing line between the great and the good, but to lump Brendan Rodgers in with Van Gaal and Benitez is foolish in the extreme. The only trophy he’s ever won is the Championship Playoff Trophy, after finishing third in the league. Now he may go on to great success, but at this stage in his career, he is in no way in the same league as Van Gaal or Benitez. Even Harry Redknapp has won more than him!
Steve (I’m still puzzled by Van Gaal’s tenure at United thus far, but you can’t ignore his history) MUFC
…Taking into consideration that letter this morning from Dave Lfc, have finally seen Peak Liverpool fan? Let me just get this right. Dave did compare Brandan Rodgers (0 titles, 0 cups) to Louis Van Gaal (7 titles in 3 countries, 1 Champions League, 1 UEFA Cup amongst many others……) and Rafael Banitez (multiple La Liga winner, 1 Champions League, 1 FA Cup, 1 FIFA Club World Cup)?

Dave, I like Rodgers. I think he’s a very good manager and will have a very successful career, with or without Liverpool. But to compare him to multi-title winning managers like Van Gaal and Benitez is simply wrong. To describe Van Gaal and Benitez as ‘good’ is more than insulting, as well. These manager, whether you choose to like their character or not, have proved beyond doubt that they’re more than just ‘good’. Rodgers is ‘good’. Van Gaal and Benitez are exceptional. Their CVs prove this beyond reasonable argument. Give your head a shake.
Harry The Manc

…Did Dave Lfc really just put Rodgers in the same bracket as Louis Van Gaal and Rafa Benitez!? Those two have won titles and the Champions League while Rodgers just embarrassed us in it last year. Also a bit harsh saying the current managers of two of the biggest clubs in the world are nearly men. It shows how far we’ve fallen that a) Rodgers is still in a job and b) fans are delighted that Klopp might be talking about us when he says he doesn’t need an ‘absolute top club’. What happened to us?

Wenger Won Nothing? Shush
Dave Lfc says that ‘Wenger picked up some league titles on the foundation of George Graham’s great Arsenal defense. Since they have left and retired: nada, zilch.’

I’d just like to point out that none of Lehmann, Lauren, Toure, Campbell or Cole played under George Graham. That was the first-choice defence in 2003/04, when we last won the league. Without losing a single match I hasten to add.

I wouldn’t personally describe that as nada or zilch…
Jakey, SE LDN
…Look, I know Wenger-bashing is the flavour of the month after he lost the real quiz (the transfer window), but there is no reason Dave LFC to denigrate his real achievements.

Wenger went through a season unbeaten with a team that he was solely responsible for. The great George Graham defence – which, incidentally, was relegation-threatened in GG’s last season at the club (which is not to knock the individual players) – had completely left in 2003/04.

The manager is not perfect and is arguably not up there with the very best,but such a fallacy like Dave LFC’s can’t go unchallenged.

And, while I am here, as an Arsenal fan, I don’t mind City. I don’t like the way that money has guaranteed them titles, but they have always been a likable club. Chelsea, on the other hand, have never been likable.
Jaimie Kaffash, AFC, north London
…Dave LFC may well have a point about the greatest managers being more pragmatic and not beholden to a style/philosophy to the extent that it prevents them/the team from winning…I think it’s not so straightforward but in my opinion not necessarily worth the argument, so no that’s not why I’m writing;

‘Wenger picked up some league titles on the foundation of George Graham’s great Arsenal defense. Since they have left and retired: nada, zilch. Arsenes pride/philosophy/blind spot is apparent for all to see but not him. Arsenal will never win the league with him in charge whilst pragmatists like Mourinho manage his rivals.’

Campbell, Lauren, Toure, Cole – I’m sure I won’t be the only one who picks up on the fact that the entire defence of that Invincibles team was signed by Wenger – the same man who insisted on the signing of Patrick Vieira as a condition of joining Arsenal who then signed Petit and Gilberto Silva?

I always have this argument with my Arse-supporting friends, it’s not that Wenger has a blind spot, it’s that he thinks football has changed/is changing and he’s right up to a point, apart from a few honourable exceptions, the DM position isn’t as much about destroying as it used to be – even Mourinho will concede that some possession is important – Matic is pretty good on the ball (he says without checking the stats).

Anyway that’s an argument for a different day.
Jonathan, Newcastle
More Fanmail For Dave
1. You’re an idiot.

2. Yes, Mourinho is definitely in the great camp because of his lack of pride. Very, very humble man, that one.

3. Great managers who are idealists and stuck to their principles or philosophies or whatever: Michels, Cruyff, Del Bosque, and Guardiola, just off the top of my head.

4. Besides, Mourinho has a philosophy too. Last time I checked, it involved being defensively well-organized and waiting to capitalise on the opponent’s mistakes (whether via counter-attacks, free kicks, or high pressing), combined with (post-Porto) managing clubs that allow him to spend huge amounts of money to ensure that his team is almost certainly more talented than the opposition, and, if things go wrong, blaming anyone in sight except himself and insisting he needs to buy new players. He sticks pretty closely to this model. His ‘blindspot’ is in giving his players the freedom (see Mata, Juan) to play proactive, expansive, creative, appropriately risk-taking football (see PSG last season).

5. Did Wenger really go the 2003-2004 season unbeaten ‘on the foundation of George Graham’s great Arsenal defense’? Hmm, let me go check…Nope, no he didn’t. But don’t let that get in the way of your ‘argument’.

6. Liverpool had ‘the best spine in Europe at the time’? Maybe you did (I think it’s unlikely, but I cannot remember the line-ups of every top team c. 2006-2009), but I wasn’t aware that they’ve started giving out awards for ‘best spine’. Kind of like the awards for ‘deserving to win the league’ and ‘being unplayable at times’ that your fans like to remind the rest of us your team won in 2013-2014.
PFo, Oxford UK

Lineker > Rooney Actually
John Nicholson’s article raises an interesting discussion, one which the cricket lot seemed to sum up quite nicely recently. Statistics will give us a guide to who should be in the reckoning for ‘greatest ever/best’ accolades, however, to actually be considered the best is a very subjective thing. Different eras, different opposition, etc… everybody has a different opinion and therefore this is no outright definitive ‘best’ of anything sporting.

When looking at Mr Rooney, it’s undoubted that to score 49 international goals is a great achievement and he will naturally deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Charlton, Lineker, Greaves and Owen. However, each have their own merits for being considered England’s best. Personally, I believe Rooney is bottom of that list of five that I’ve named. I’d even have Shearer in as a better striker, but Lineker for me is at the top of the pile (48 in 80 appearances within seven years and individually successful in two World Cups, scoring massive goals in massive matches along the way). And he wasn’t an arse.

I guess my point is merely that Rooney is definitely one of the best, but the rest is there for discussions over a pint – unfortunately, it’s likely that the pathetic media will be telling us ‘Roo did it’ and ‘Roo’re the greatest’ etc…

All I hope is that there’s a 17 year old somewhere who will get to play 100+ matches for England in the not too distant future who will surpass Rooney as quickly as possible.
Rob, London
Fattest Latest
The story in Mediawatch reminds me of a Jimmy Carr joke. He was once accused of being fattist. His response was, ‘no, you’re fattest’.

More Related Articles