Manuel Pellegrini vs Roberto Mancini

[shandon]

No this is not a thread about possible combatants in the next episode of celebrity deathmatch 
Now that Pellegrini's reign is over who do you think is/was the best manager of the two?
They both had a similar amount of time at the club and won a similar amount of major trophies (the charity shield doesn't count). But Pellegrini did quite a bit better in the champions league while Mancini had us climb the league table every year (apart from the last one) and Pellegrini went backwards in that regard.

[Lekos]

Mancini for me.  Had less to work with initially and I honestly think the champs league was largely due to luck.  I mean, just look at the group stage opponents when Mancini was in charge and when Pelle was.

[goat]

brian horton

to be honest im not that arsed, both won the league and  both failed  in europe, although pelle failed a bit better

[gavin]

Mancini was much superior. We played good attacking football mostly and were also good defensively. The impact he had on the defence when he first came in was amazing. Pellegrini struggled with the defence almost throughout. As Lekos says, Mancini started from a much lower base and made us. Pellegrini kept us at that level for a season but we deteriorated after that. Making the Chumps semis was progress but our league performance this season plainly was not good enough.

[nimrod]

Pelle is a shite manager if you ask me, any manger with massive funds who cant sort a defence in 3 years is shite at his job

We went backwards, Chumps league he got lucky as Lekos says, he won the prem with Manky's team

[KunDB]

Mancini by a mile. Only problem with him he was not like by key players who did not like the fact he would not let the players played half-hearted; Pelle  did.

[shandon]

No one likes Pelle. So firing Mancini was a mistake?

[goat]

well mancini didnt really do much  after leaving did he, not sure either are a loss