Manchester City manager Roberto Mancini shows subtle psychology by claiming Everton defeat was his fault Why, you wondered as he talked, did he not simply do what most of his rivals would do in similar circumstances: blame the ref? It was not the first time he has done it, either. At the climax of last season, after his City side had again been dismissed on Merseyside, he claimed a 3-0 defeat at Liverpool was entirely his responsibility. After that intervention, City fans feared for their season. With Carlos Tévez injured during the match, with the team looking shiftless and now with the manager admitting he did not know what he was doing, they gloomily foresaw only implosion up ahead. As it turned out, his remarks spurred the opposite reaction. City beat Manchester United five days later in the FA Cup semi-final on their way to their first trophy in a generation before embarking on a run that ensured Champions League qualification. As a motivational tactic, shielding his players from blame, his remarks worked a treat. And if it worked once, why not try the line again? After a testing January, the truth is City looked jaded at Goodison Park, badly missing the titanic midfield influence of Yaya Touré. It was not so much that the manager's tactics were deficient, as the players failed to put them into action. By suggesting he was to blame, however, Mancini deflected attention from his squad's inadequacies, scrutiny that might otherwise undermine the group morale. Other managers have previously espoused the idea of setting a false trail to cover for their team's deficiency. Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho are both masters of the diversionary tactic, deliberately making themselves the centre of a story in order to protect those who matter. But neither of them would ever do so by confessing a weakness. And it is understandable why they do not. For Mancini to admit to complacency in his preparation is a personal risk. Thoroughness and proper organisation are a minimum requirement in the modern manager. Even if it is untrue and merely a trick to fool the media, to suggest he was caught out by a team such as Everton, whose belligerence is renowned and whose record against City should inspire the opposite of complacency, potentially undermines his competence. Were he to fail to deliver the trophies his employers have bankrolled, they could easily use it as evidence of his fallibility. In retrospect, it could be the dynamite that blows up in his face. Which makes you think Mancini does not expect his remarks will ever come back to haunt him. This is a naturally cautious man. Odd as it may seem, they are instead the comments of a confident manager. He will know - and, whatever he might say, attention to detail is embedded his managerial approach - that a campaign to win the league is not straightforward. Few teams ever seal the title without trauma. Managing dips in form, injury, suspension and absences at the Africa Cup of Nations are part of the job. What he does not want is for his team spirit to be damaged by excessive condemnation of a defeat which, in the long view, might be irrelevant. He knows that Touré"s return is really all that is required to return the team to the kind of form they demonstrated at the start of the season. Mario Balotelli coming back from suspension with a point to prove will help, too. If an apparently casually introduced confession of personal shortcoming can tide things over for a week or two, it is worth the risk. Especially if you consider the risk is minimal. Across the hedge at his Carrington training base, Mancini knows there lurks a rival who long ago mastered the psychological requirements of modern management. Mancini's little performance at Goodison suggests the newcomer has the armoury at his disposal to test even the master. Far from being a confession of weakness, Mancini spoke on Tuesday from a position of increasing personal strength. Speed inquest highlights the dangers of new media Inconclusive as his inquest might have been, we can be sure about one aspect of Gary Speed's death: none of the rumours about him that spun round the internet immediately after he took his life had any basis in fact. In a week in which enthusiasts such as Joey Barton and Stan Collymore have evangelised new media's superiority over old, that was a sobering reminder of the web's sometimes reckless relationship with the truth. Back in November, the lack of clear explanation as to why a man with so much to look forward to committed suicide created an information vacuum into which was poured endless, groundless, vicious gossip, all repeated as fact without the sort of effort to test its veracity that would be insisted on at even the most scurrilous of traditional media outlets. That was summed up in a tweet that Speed's brother-in-law, Anthony Haylock, forwarded after the inquest in Warrington on Monday. "So, Gary Speed wasn't gay, wasn't having an affair and wasn't facing tabloid exposure," it said. Nice work, Twitter. Mind you, that the original tweet was sent by Piers Morgan, a man who made a lucrative career as a purveyor of tabloid blather, suggests that even in this instance the moral high ground is not easily identified.