Which was the better signing - Mata or Fellaini?

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

How can people say Fellaini?

Mata has scored 44 goals in six seasons of football as a player who has been rotated and shunted out wide, ridiculously poorly used. Probably has another 20 assists on top.

 

[Volumiza]

I didn't compare their transfers to any other transfers. Mata was quality for Chelsea where he was one of the best players in the league, just like Sanchez but for ManUtd they haven't done anything much.

I agree with all of that, just thought it was unnecessary and a little harsh to call them nothing players.

He was quality at Chelsea because he was used in his best position.

 

[roonster09]

I agree with all of that, just thought it was unnecessary and a little harsh to call them nothing players.

He was quality at Chelsea because he was used in his best position.

I agree with that, but this thread is about their performance and impact at this club, not who is better talent or pleasing player to watch.

I like Mata though, probably nicest guy in the league.

 

[Volumiza]

I agree with that, but this thread is about their performance and impact at this club, not who is better talent or pleasing player to watch.

I like Mata though, probably nicest guy in the league.

If only someone had convinced Mata to hit the gym and strengthen up a bit. It's not like he would have lost pace as he didn't have any to begin with but the ability to hold off players a little more would have improved him 1,000,000%.

 

[Fortitude]

That to me is the issue and why Mata is the better. Fellaini symbolized our declining expectations and acceptance of mediocrity and hoofball. Mata didn't. That we failed with managerial appointments after this is not down to Mata. So to me, Juan "Juanfield" Mata will also be a far better signing than Marouane "Elbow Tree" Fellaini. Like I said, no disrespect for what Fellaini did for us, nor for his commitment etc., but no comparison. Mata wins hands down.

But what does that have to do with the player? We bought him so that isn't his fault. Emotions and aesthetics as well as lowering the bar for Mata to make them seem comparable from the outset will obviously skew the poll.

If you mean goals conceded, then I agree.

It's not close. The transfer fees were comparable and while Mata hasn't lived up to the high expectations, he's been a way more useful player for us than Fellaini. The latter had his use as an impact sub but more often than not, his technical deficits have prevented us from playing the way we want to play. And let's not forget, Fellaini hasn't lived up to expectations either. Despite being a very expensive signing at the time, he never managed to really nail down a place in the team.

We've played like donkeys and just plain, cold and practical for a number of seasons, which lessened Mata's functionality greatly. Mata hasn't been a viable player for us under most conditions for almost the entirety of his tenure. This, coming from a one-time star of the league who we expected to do similar things for us as he had for Chelsea.

We paid a full £10m more for Mata than Fellaini - a club record fee at the time, which is representative of the respective standing of the players at the time.

Even as we got Fellaini we knew precisely what to expect, and got it. Mata's story hasn't been the same and if we had got what we paid for with him, he'd be an absolute legend at the club by now.

Mata is one of few players who gets a free pass from our support for being affable, saying the right things, making no fuss and having his moment of wonderful goals or technical feats whilst Fellaini is the manifestation and emodiment of everything most of do not want in a Manchester United player, at the same time, Fellaini is the one from the two who has delivered to what his capabilities and remits are and were, not Mata.

Nope. We paid for a proper midfielder that we so desperately needed in Fergie’s last years. All we got was a makeshift target man.

It’s on Moyes, of course, as he knew him best but still chose to sign him for a wrong role.

We paid for exactly what Moyes wanted, whatever that is supposed to be. To get the absolute optimum out of Felliani, we would have to change our style completely to model the team around him, which is absurd and why he shouldn't have been signed in the first place (on top of not being good enough, of course) but under the circumstances, Fellaini has delivered what Fellaini can, whether played deeper in midfield or further forward.

We can't blame him for what he is as a player not being good enough for us, which is what I think a lot of people are doing.

 

[Ødegaard]

Voted for Fellaini due to expectations being lower. But both have been below what we should expect for a United player.

 

[Leftback99]

Fellaini, not that he's been brilliant. Mata has held back our attack for the last 4 years with his lack of pace and safe play, pretty sure he's started in most of our worst results over that time including last night.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Fellaini, not that he's been brilliant. Mata has held back our attack for the last 4 years with his lack of pace and safe play, pretty sure he's started in most of our worst results over that time including last night.

Just.... no.

 

[Kag]

Mata by an absolute fecking mile.

Some of the joke responses in this thread only seek to reinforce my view that the expectations of Fellaini have been and continue to be low.

The only person being insulted here is - bizarrely - Fellaini himself. Expecting sod all (or to pass the ball in a straight line) is an insult to the considerable (yes, considerable) talent he has.

Mata has scored more, started more, assisted more and objectively proven to be the better player during their time here. It shouldn’t even be up for debate.

 

[Siorac]

Mata by an absolute fecking mile.

Some of the joke responses in this thread only seek to reinforce my view that the expectations of Fellaini have been and continue to be low.

The only person being insulted here is - bizarrely - Fellaini himself. Expecting sod all (or to pass the ball in a straight line) is an insult to the considerable (yes, considerable) talent he has.

Mata has scored more, started more, assisted more and objectively proven to be the better player during their time here. It shouldn’t even be up for debate.

Yeah, Fellaini gathered a set of followers mostly because of the perceived overly harsh criticism he received. These fans of his pretty much praise him every time he performs adequately; as in, he doesn't cost the team and does the simple things right. Among these fans, the expectations of Fellaini are ridiculously low.

 

[ivaldo]

This. I love Mata and he has had some great moments with us but Fellani I felt contributed more at times. When we were losing a game and needed a goal, I would prefer Fellani coming on than Mata more often than not as he was more likely to score or cause enough havoc for us to score

Yup. That doesn’t make Fellaini the better player. I think in the right system Mata can still be very effective, but we didn’t play that system, nor will be play it going forward. With plenty of movement around him he can still cause teams all kinds of problems as a #10, but playing a traditional #10 is a little bit dated now.

 

[Red00012]

Mata for his Anfield performance alone. I still think of fellaini and that 4-4 game played for Everton that cost us the title.

 

[humdinger]

They’ve both underwhelmed to be honest. Genuinely thought both would be really good signings but neither has.

 

[Kush]

You seriously need to do some research, especially since Mata also scored in that 4-2 win over city.
What you've essentially just said is you don't need to look at the facts regarding cup competitions, then decided Fellaini has done far more in them, which is categorically untrue.

It is not untrue, because Mata hasn't done more than Fellaini in all of our three trophy wins post-Fergie. I've taken the trouble to look at those runs, in our FA Cup win under van Gaal. Fellaini scored the winner in 6th round replay vs West Ham before scoring the opener in SF against Everton, Mata equalized in the final. In league cup, both him and Mata scored in SF 1st leg. In Europa league, Mata scored the winner in RO16 while Fellaini scored the winner in SF before being MOM in the final.

I see more big moments and impact from Fellaini than Mata.

Likewise, I don't think Fellaini has achieved something extraordinary in cup games compared to Mata. You could argue Fellaini edges out cup competitions - like you can argue Mata edges out big PL games.

As an aside, Fellaini has never scored against Chelsea - he has scored one against Spurs, City and Arsenal.

Yet Fellaini is much-maligned who our fanbase can't wait to see back off while lovely Mata getting a new contract is somehow good. Neither have pulled up any trees (no pun intended) during their OT career, if anything we've gotten more out of Fellaini given his ability than Mata which is why I think this poll is lopsided.

 

[OleTheGreat]

Mata is far far better than Fellaini. In fact i'm torn by this comparison. Mata is a beatiful player with a fantastic first touch and a sleek movement and passing. His accuracy helps keeps possession and even though he's short, he manages to keep the ball well and pass before somebody tries to get it off him. Another amazing quality he possesses is his free kicks. If someone says he's not capable of winning us matches, you must be crazy. That free kick from Mata was the reason we won against Newcastle at home after being 2-0 down. Mata is hands down better than the tall freak who can only head the ball, even which he misses many times.

Mata>Fellaini!

 

[Fosu-Mens]

The only two signings made under the Moyes era and now that Fellaini is going(it seems), I was just curious as to what people think has proven to be a better signing so far.

For me it's Fellaini

Neither of the players were good signings. Football, as with most sports, evolves. And there should be no suprise that football evolved to become more fast paced and high intensity sport. Everything happens faster. Fellaini does in no way correlate to this developement, and can be called a niche player, useful in certain situations like set pieces but in the normal play he offers little. Mata got the technical ability needed to perform, but his physicality lets him down big and can only contribute in certain situations.

Eventhough hindsight is a great thing, this developement in football was easy to predict. And we should never have signed Mata and Fellaini, regardless of how nice a guy Mata is or how professional Fellaini is.

 

[Champagne Football]

Mata was hailed as the new David Silva when he arrived.
Fellaini was seen as the new Duncan Ferguson.

So all in all Mata was a much bigger disappointment despite once every 10 or 15 games having a big game.

 

[crossy1686]

Mata for the goals at Liverpool away alone. As much as it's not Fellani's fault, he's the physical embodiment of everything that's wrong with us post Fergie. There's only about three managers who would have signed Fellani, Moyes, Allardyce and Pulis and we had to hire one of those dickheads.

 

[vanderpants]

Obviously both totally different kind of player, but if you were the manager surely you would apt for Mata. But Mario has saved our skin a few times in the past, all be it with a "find Mario" cross and let him do what he's best at! If you take Mata and put him in city's team or maybe even Liverpool, I think he would do even better than he has done for us, Mata as a whole just comes across as a wonderful human and I would let my Mrs have his babies

 

[amolbhatia50k]

The only reason some are picking Fellaini is because he comes as a sub/plan B so his only goals/good moments come when we're desperate, whereas Mata has produced in those times as well as in general. Plus him being a bit shit adds to the underdog story and all that. Otherwise Mata contributes more in terms of goal, assists and his general play is better. It's not even close.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Fellaini, not that he's been brilliant. Mata has held back our attack for the last 4 years with his lack of pace and safe play, pretty sure he's started in most of our worst results over that time including last night.

Mata hasn't held us back. That's just silly. One player isn't the reason, or even a major reason, our attack has been wank for 5 years.

 

[AltiUn]

Mata's the better player but hasn't been the better player for us. Taking into account expectations and cost I'd say Fellaini, even now I still believe Mata's proven poor value for money at £37m.

 

[Drifter]

Fellaini. Poorly treated by some in here.

 

[fergies coat]

I can’t believe this is even a debate. Mata has been the better player easily. Have I stepped into a parallel universe?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Read that Mata has 46 goals and 31 assists for us. That's 77 goals he's been involved in I'm 5.5 seasons which is not great but it is a substantially contribution. These stats are particularly ruined by last season which was horrible for him. For three seasons in a row he had scored 10 goals and presumably 50 odd g+a in aggregate.

Again, I'm not saying Mata has been great. A strong case can be made for letting him due to his lack of pace. But he's never been close to Fellaini level.

 

[Kostur]

Reading through this thread only reasserts me that many people here either struggle with reading comprehension or cannot understand basic questions. Exactly what I've expected opening this thread today's morning.

 

[JK-27]

Mata is a a better player but, just like Fellaini, he's not really a Utd player. He's too slow, I've said it before he looks like he's running in mud, and he slows down our play too much. Hate Fellaini all you want, and hate long ball football, but when he comes on and we hoof it in the box Fellaini scares the crap out of defenders, Mata just doesn't do that. Fellaini has delivered exactly what was expected, Mata just hasn't really achieved much.

 

[Canagel]

Yeah, Fellaini gathered a set of followers mostly because of the perceived overly harsh criticism he received. These fans of his pretty much praise him every time he performs adequately; as in, he doesn't cost the team and does the simple things right. Among these fans, the expectations of Fellaini are ridiculously low.

People in this country also the love the underdog story and fighting against all the odds. It adds to Fellainis case

 

[MuFc_1992]

How many goals+assists has mata had since we signed him? Im guessing hes definitely among our top contributors since fergie retired.

 

[Josep Dowling]

Mata has been constantly played out of position and still it now. If we had used him as a CAM from the start maybe he would stop drifting into a central position and leaving our right flank so empty.

Blame the manager for that.

 

[Matt007a]

Mata by a mile. He's the most creative player at the club alongside Pogba. Unfortunately changes in football over the last 10 years have not favoured him. It's very difficult to be effective when you're so physically poor. Gone are the days of sitting in and playing patiently. Football now is about quick press, quick transition and counter attack. He slows us down quite a lot, despite his ability to find a pass.

Someone like David Silva gets away with it because firstly he's an even better footballer than Mata, but also City play him to his strengths, while we ask Mata to play out wide which he is completely inept at.

Fellaini has scored some big goals over the years and has changed games in our favour as our Plan B. I think the abuse he gets is harsh, but he's not really at the level we should be aspiring to. That's not his fault and he doesn't pick himself, but he seems to be criticised for it all the same.

 

[Paxi]

Mata.

Obviously.

 

[worldinmotion66]

Mata's brought me far more joy than Fellaini has but I do appreciate both players. Mata is such a likeable man, I'm as proud to have him at the club than any other player we've had. He's a credit to himself and the club.

 

[Class of 63]

Fellaini has been head and shoulders above Mata!

 

[sullydnl]

Imagine you buy some chicken, you eat it, you get food poisoning. That was a bad purchase, in hindsight. Now imagine you buy months-old rotting chicken at cheaper price, eat it expecting it will make you sick, then get even worse food poisoning than you did from the first chicken. That was a bad purchase before hindsight ever came into play. If you start arguing "well actually the second chicken was the better buy, because even though it made me more ill I at least bought it knowing it would make me more ill" then people would think you're weird.

Thus ends my chicken analogy, which I'm sure you'll agree was deeply insightful and definitely not a waste of the precious seconds of life it took for me to type it out.

All things being equal, Mata has quantifiably contributed more to the team than Fellaini. Appearances, goals, assists, all there in black and white. If you want to argue that our rock bottom expectations for Fellaini have made him (relatively) less of a dissapointment then you also have to accept that those same rock bottom expectations made him a worse signing to begin with. Which is pretty relevant in a thread about who the better signing was.

 

[youmeletsfly]

Considering that he was vastly misused and rarely played at nr 10, Mata, by a mile.

 

[C'mon FC]

Right. So you think the people who say Fellaini has won us more games think he did so with his sterling DM performances as opposed to his attacking impact?

Because unless you think Fellaini's worth actually came from what he did as a midfielder in midfield then we're actually talking about his impact in attack too, in terms of goals and nuisance value.

I actually like Fellaini cause of his haircut and that says a lot about him as a footballer.
I usually value players for them ability to win big titles. In defence midfield in this category fall players like Busquets/Kante/Modric. I'd say Witsel is even closer to that category than Fellaini. (Not only him in this ManUTD team though). Pogba/De Gea and maybe Martial I would count in being (let's call them) winners.

Neither Mata nor Fellaini are. I was just refering above that only looking on scored goals to compare t o players is pretty dumb.

 

[C'mon FC]

But let's be honest, Fellaini doesn't contribute much when he isn't scoring, outside of being a nuisance.

I think to judge a good defence midfielder is pretty much impossible with statistics. Like Kante or back in the days Makelele; they just stand always there where the ball is going. Is that a bad pass or great anticipation. What about the physical presence? What about a simple pass over 3 meters where the next player has lots of room for counter attacks?

Fellaini is not a "winner" as mentioned above but I think he is also not as bad as many people see him.

 

[Wanderlust_09]

Mata hands down.

He has scored 44 goals, the 2nd most by any Man Utd player during his time here, only behind Martial - 46.
We signed so many players similar to him and we all thought he would be shipped on - like Kagawa, Mkhtaryan, Di Maria, Sanchez, but in the end hew as the one who prevailed.
He was terrific until the end of 16-17 season, averaging 10 goals/assists every season, but he has been mediocre in the past 1.5 season.

He came to the club during his peak, and during our worst phase and hence we have not been able to extract the best out of him unfortunately.
The way he was performing at Chelsea had he moved to an in form club in Spain or Italy, he would have reached the next level.

But if the question is based on expectations, I agree that given the circumstances when we signed him, we have not been able to get what we thought we would, but its partly our own mistake.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Mata better. Because he scored a scissor kick against Liverpool.