It was pretty inevitable that serious questions were going to be asked of Manuel Pellegrini's Manchester City tenure; losing to Barcelona in the Champions League has merely prompted the question sooner.

Stalling league form, disappointing domestic cup exits and last night's loss have meant that City, barring a miraculous turn around in the league, will end the season trophy-less. The question regarding Pellegrini's reign now doesn't actually lie on the merit of his team this year, but more on the managerial policy that the upper-echelons of the club's hierarchy want to take.

City and their fans have always been slightly different to the public-bashing norm of English fans, having faith in their cohort of managers even when times are bad. Roberto Mancini by all accounts had an awful season before being sacked, yet left on incredibly positive terms with the club's supporters (they had a £7000 whip round for an advert in an Italian magazine to thank him for his work).

That's a far-sight different from the situation reflected most similarly in City's equivalent, Chelsea, where their sadist owner Roman Abramovic sharpens his proverbial manager-guillotine everytime he sniffs a scent of weakness in his management team.

Pellegrini, therefore represents a converging policy-point for owner Sheikh Mansour and his board. Sack him and you create an ingrained culture of managerial intolerance which will resonate deeply with all incoming managers in the future, weary of the demand to perform exceptionally to stay in the job. Alternatively, keep the faith, exploit the admirable compassion of the club's fanbase, and show the footballing spheres that City won't conform to the savage conventions of managerial-bashing.

It really is a bit of a toss up - Pellegrini has walked into a very corrosive medium, where the fans would hardly revolt if he stayed, but City could easily tap into their fickleness and cast him side anyway.

You can therefore take the cynical view, considering the last couple of months in isolation to come to a pejorative verdict on Pellegrini. Or more holistically, you can take a sympathetic approach,  and be weary that there are deeper-rooted problems at the Etihad that are beyond Pellegrini's de facto control.

[ad_pod id='football-friends' align='center']

It must be remembered that City's transfer policy over the last couple of years has largely failed. In an era of extensive scouting systems and directors of football whose priority is to identify talent, Pellegrini can not be solely blamed for the imports who have failed to improve the team.

Fernandinho is perhaps the player who epitomises this disappointment most. A truly fantastic midfielder in his time at Shakhtar, yet now a place-filler who hardly contributes. This squad's average age is also 29.1, a sign that it is coming to the end of it's cycle and will need overhauling with conviction soon; only Sergio Aguero, Wilfried Bony and Eliaquim Mangala are under the age of 27 . Why shouldn't Pellegrini, with his ideals now lain in the club, oversee that transition?

What is to be gained from bringing in someone new and burdening them with the elusive task of assembling a new team? And what if they fail? Do you then restart this interminably unproductive cycle until someone gets lucky, displacing all long term consistency and continuity within the club?

If City's board can attract a candidate of the highest calibre, a Diego Simeone or a Carlo Ancelloti, or - whisper it quietly - a Pep Guardiola, then it's a risk worth taking. But beside that very minor elite of the world's best managers, City won't find a superior alternative to Pellegrini.

It's worth remembering the last manager in England to win a double in his first season before being sacked prematurely the following year for winning nothing. That was Carlo Ancelloti at Chelsea, and his dismissal remains one of the most ridiculous decisions in the Abramovic era.

Pellegrini has asserted his confidence in assurances that he's under no direct pressure to win anything this year. But then Roberto Mancini made worryingly identical remarks this time two years ago - he appeared assured that his position was tenable, only to be shown the door.

It's a difficult position to call and City should act wisely. Pellegrini is an excellent manager and should be gifted more time on the assumption that City don't have access to that bracket of superior alternatives.

[ad_pod id='ffc-video' align='center']

[ad_pod id='ricco' align='center']