JoaquinJoaquin
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2014
- Messages
- 8,609
Yup, been like that all season mate.Funny how the posters that shoot people down when he gets a goal etc, completely disappear when he has yet another average (meh) performance.
Yup, been like that all season mate.Funny how the posters that shoot people down when he gets a goal etc, completely disappear when he has yet another average (meh) performance.
I know we only had ten players today, but he did nothing today. He wasnt poor... But its not like he added anything either.One of our better players and has been for a while , don't know why he gets so much stick.
Yeah we all know the ones. Anyhow, he had a good 5 minutes or so after the break but overall he wasn't up to much at all.Yup, been like that all season mate.
He's not better than peak Valencia. Even current Valencia would at least run at defenders and then smash the ball at their shins repeatedly.I know we only had ten players today, but he did nothing today. He wasnt poor... But its not like he added anything either.
He's a better version of Young/Valencia, really.
That shot from outside the box shortly after the break was very nice indeed.Was one of our okayish players...had a very good effort at one point. Still quite ineffectual for most of the game though.
Yep, was excellent. Capable of producing those occasional moments, but not usually often enough.That shot from outside the box shortly after the break was very nice indeed.
No and his overall play is nowhere near good enough. He loses the ball far too regularly.Yep, was excellent. Capable of producing those occasional moments, but not usually often enough.
He was one of our better players today.Funny how the posters that shoot people down when he gets a goal etc, completely disappear when he has yet another average (meh) performance.
That means absolutely nothing.He was one of our better players today.
A better version of which version of Valencia? Also, Young's been pretty alright and threatening through patches of his United career.I know we only had ten players today, but he did nothing today. He wasnt poor... But its not like he added anything either.
He's a better version of Young/Valencia, really.
Routledge was a fairly promising youngster who's development plateaued when he moved to Spurs. Things don't always go to plan and I think it is somewhat rash of so many to assume we are seeing the end product/finished article in a player (Lingard) less than 30 games in to his debut season at the top level. It's apparent he won't ever be challenging for the ballon d'or but he has shown glimpses of genuine quality and a fantastic attitude despite the relative cesspit he has been dropped in to. Your opinion may prove to be perfectly accurate but for some, myself included, he has done enough for me to hold out on making a definitive judgement for another year or so and already gone a long way to proving that he could be somewhat useful, even if that is only as a back-up.If we were Swansea or West Brom or Palace or whatever and we'd produced him he'd be a useful but not that notable, versatile midfielder on decent wages who is homegrown and who is a decent finisher and can be plugged in when someone is hurt or when he's in form, like a James Morrison or Wayne Routledge or whatever.
Perfectly decent, mid-table pro. I have no idea what else there is to see with him, though. He can't take players on and his vision/creativity and technique aren't special, and you basically need to have one of those qualities, right? And don't start talking about Thomas Muller. Does anyone think he'll be better in his prime than say, Steven Davis is? Would signing Steven Davis help us?
I'm losing my mind with this team.
AKA a Valencia special. The training sessions must be "interesting".He makes so many stupid decisions per game... it's infuriating.
I don't know why he thinks he won't smash the ball at defenders when they're two yards away from him and he's made no effort to shift the ball or do anything to gain a yard.
For 5 minutes after the restart, yes, yes he was.He was one of our better players today.
That means absolutely nothing.
He created two chances all by himself which were probably our best and only chances in the game anyway. In general it isn't much but in a game like this he doesn't deserve much criticism considering he was pretty much our third best player, hardly anyone would do any better(see Memphis who was far worse).For 5 minutes after the restart, yes, yes he was.
Yup, and have a gander back through the thread, after the restart I posted and said he looked threatening. About five or so minutes into the second half, he disappeared. The whole team was utter shit, mind.He created two chances all by himself which were probably our best and only chances in the game anyway. In general it isn't much but in a game like this he doesn't deserve much criticism considering he was pretty much our third best player, hardly anyone would do any better(see Memphis who was far worse).
Get the trumpets out, Lingard was our THIRD best player today. Sorry but he does deserve criticism when he is very average and has shown that in pretty much every game he has played. He seems like a nice guy but if he merits a place in the first 11 based on that then we might aswell have 'the good guy' David Moyes as manager while we are at it. He is 23 years old, Not like he is 18-19 so the chances are that this is pretty much the final version of him, And this version isn't good enough for this club no matter how much you sugar coat it.He created two chances all by himself which were probably our best and only chances in the game anyway. In general it isn't much but in a game like this he doesn't deserve much criticism considering he was pretty much our third best player, hardly anyone would do any better(see Memphis who was far worse).
I can't see one post with the word ineffective?Never watched the Brom game due to work, but seeing Lingard described as ineffective seems agenda driven.
He has not got a perfect skill set and some may validly think he should be replaced with someone more suitable, but recently, we have been reliant on his goals and assists.
Inconsistent? Frustrating? Underwhelming? Maybe, but ineffective?
No.
Look again.I can't see one post with the word ineffective?
Guaranteed to start the rest of the season.
It doesn't help him and it certainly doesn't help us. No matter how in ineffective he is, he'll play.
Wowzers, one post. I don't see what's wrong with the word ineffective? He certainly was yesterday.Look again.
You left out the fact that he has virtually none of the attributes needed to be a top wide player. Cannot beat a man, Cannot cross a ball and very limited passing ability (unless you count passing backwards or sideways, but if that's the case then Cleverly is the new Xavi).Never watched the Brom game due to work, but seeing Lingard described as ineffective seems agenda driven.
He has not got a perfect skill set and some may validly think he should be replaced with someone more suitable, but recently, we have been reliant on his goals and assists.
Inconsistent? Frustrating? Underwhelming? Maybe, but ineffective?
No.
Check the player threads for pretty much everyone who played yesterday, Everyone bar Smalling is getting slated.The entire team played shit yesterday but Lingard will take the flack. The norm for this thread.
Well, yeah. He has been ineffective in plenty of games this season. I think you're being rather pedantic pulling up a poster for using that particular word. He has had some good games, but far too often, he has failed to stamp his authority on a game and has been either anonymous or wildly inconsistent. For me, an attacking player that fails to perform his duties, can certainly be deemed ineffective. I mean, feck me, Rooney has been beyond ineffective in a hell of a lot of games over the past 2 years. Lingard certainly isn't the only one, but I don't see why you would take umbrage with the word ineffective when it's actually quite accurate.Well good for you.
And you ignore the fact that we would be a damned sight worse off without his goals and assists, an area we were really struggling with before he came into the team.You left out the fact that he has virtually none of the attributes needed to be a top wide player. Cannot beat a man, Cannot cross a ball and very limited passing ability (unless you count passing backwards or sideways, but if that's the case then Cleverly is the new Xavi).
I know, right. Crazy that people comment on players in their respective threads. Absolutely ludicrous. Poor ouel Jesse.Check the player threads for pretty much everyone who played yesterday, Everyone bar Smalling is getting slated.
He's starting games on merit. It's not his fault he's better than some of the others in the squad.Get the trumpets out, Lingard was our THIRD best player today. Sorry but he does deserve criticism when he is very average and has shown that in pretty much every game he has played. He seems like a nice guy but if he merits a place in the first 11 based on that then we might aswell have 'the good guy' David Moyes as manager while we are at it. He is 23 years old, Not like he is 18-19 so the chances are that this is pretty much the final version of him, And this version isn't good enough for this club no matter how much you sugar coat it.
Ok, so tell me out the of the 25 games he has played this season, How many can you honestly say he has played well in? And just popping up with a goal and doing chuff all else doesn't count.He's starting games on merit. It's not his fault he's better than some of the others in the squad.
And players at 23 are the final version? Wut?
As I said in my original post, he has a great goals/assist ratio. That is the definition of effective. He as also done a sterling job defensively, in front of one our most makeshift defenses ever.Well, yeah. He has been ineffective in plenty of games this season. I think you're being rather pedantic pulling up a poster for using that particular word. He has had some good games, but far too often, he has failed to stamp his authority on a game and has been either anonymous or wildly inconsistent. For me, an attacking player that fails to perform his duties, can certainly be deemed ineffective. I mean, feck me, Rooney has been beyond ineffective in a hell of a lot of games over the past 2 years. Lingard certainly isn't the only one, but I don't see why you would take umbrage with the word ineffective when it's actually quite accurate.
He's a had a few good games, a few average ones and some poor ones. Like almost everyone in the squad. Care to tell me who should be starting on merit? I'm waiting.Ok, so tell me out the of the 25 games he has played this season, How many can you honestly say he has played well in? And just popping up with a goal and doing chuff all else doesn't count.
What players do you know have came into an 'elite' team at 23 and gone on to be a top class player? There isn't too many.
I'm not really ignoring any positives hence why I clearly stated that he has had some good games. I think you may just be ignoring the fact that even in some of the games where he got a goal or an assist, he has actually been quite poor. He has indeed had some effective games, but he has also had ineffective games.As I said in my original post, he has a great goals/assist ratio. That is the definition of effective. He as also done a sterling job defensively, in front of one our most makeshift defenses ever.
That you now choose to use the same word shows that you are ignoring these positives. Why?
Can we not have a balanced view on things these days?
I acknowledged that what Jesse lacks may be enough for some to want a different player there, but let's take him on his merits. Good or bad.
Funny you mention Rooney, as Jesse is the antithesis of him.
No pomp and reputation. No unnecessary forcing of play, or dereliction of duty to pursue his Gerrard-like moment of glory. Just boring effective goal getting and positional awareness.