When it comes to buying for the first team Ajax's transfer policy rarely makes sense.Why'd they want him? He's not good enough and will want a huge salary.
I think the choices of loan clubs were a combination of poor choices and bad luck with the change of managers. There is a player in him -- a defensive midfielder. He played that role in the academy but he really never got that chance during his loans. But he is still only 21.Jack of all trades defensively and no fix position plus not enough game time. Needs to move on asap
Yup. Those fantasy lineups are embarrassing at times.A prime example that people need to calm down with overhyping kids on here, the amount of fantasy lineups you'd see with this lad featured yeah at one point he looked very promising, but he's just not been able to make the step up, it happens. If he does leave, I wish him the best of luck.
Again. Not everyone makes it, and that's fine, it's the good riddance terminology I don't like that. Feels harsh on a youth player that's not made the step up.Then who's? He hasnt done well for one PL club, so who's at fault??
Tim Ream has him benched... Tim Ream.
Why not? If he's good enough he'll play. Especially at struggling teams where they dont mess around with loanees. Midtable teams can decide to play their own if there's nothing at stake, relegation battler dont have that luxury.Loans to struggling teams are a poor barometer of how good a player is or can be.
I didn't say that. Stop putting words into others mouths. Sometimes it just doesn't work out in football, and as a club you just need to move on.Good riddance?? Hardly his fault it hasn't worked out for him here.
Martial just last season was being benched by Jesse Lingard. Shaw by Ashley Young. Earlier this season Pogba by Fellaini.Then who's? He hasnt done well for one PL club, so who's at fault??
Tim Ream has him benched... Tim Ream.
So he's not good enough for Fulham but Ajax see him replacing their captain?Why not? If he's good enough he'll play. Especially at struggling teams where they dont mess around with loanees. Midtable teams can decide to play their own if there's nothing at stake, relegation battler dont have that luxury.
If tfm cant even break the fulham lineup maybe he's just not good enough. United and even fulham is a professional football club where they have coaches and scouts to monitor their player, if they dont get their debut yet i believe it's because they're not ready instead of some make believe that they're not given chances.
Agreed and that's my point, so I think we are on the same page. The initial good riddance post just got my goat, that's all.I didn't say that. Stop putting words into others mouths. Sometimes it just doesn't work out in football, and as a club you just need to move on.
You could but the general point, not limited to TFM, is still nonsense. The requirements of a player in most roles are vastly different at a Man utd vs a Fulham. That's without going into the incentive aspect of it. A player on loan needs to be considerably better than other options to get game time which is totally different to your parent club because there's no incentive to develop you.For every Gnabry there are hundreds of failures. Will Keane, Blackett, Reece James, Amos, Tunnicliffe, Petrucci, De Leat, Chester. Just some of the examples from this decade. I could go on forever baby.
Anyone who's ever seriously considered Blackett, Reece James, Amos, Tunnicliffe, Petrucci, de Laet or Chester likely future United first-teamers needs their head looking at, so I don't really see your point there.For every Gnabry there are hundreds of failures. Will Keane, Blackett, Reece James, Amos, Tunnicliffe, Petrucci, De Leat, Chester. Just some of the examples from this decade. I could go on forever baby.
A loan is effective if he is good enough to play for the first team, but you already have 2 players in that position, so he wouldn't get game time. The club you choose is also extremely important. I agree that most loans don't work out, but that is usually down to the player not being good enough.I agree with this.
He isn't good enough on the ball to play full back, there's feck all evidence to suggest he'd do well in midfield.I really think he should have been loaned out playing as a destroying midfielder these last couple of years somewhere in the Championship. His best strengths is tackling, power and speed. I'll much rather he learn positional sense as a ball winning midfielder. His passing isn't great but I just feel his tackling is so strong he could have been something special there.
Why?They want a straight swap with De Ligt. Ajax are really breaking our balls. If Woody does this I lose all respect for him.
This and why I hate loans. If the young player is not far better than the proven asset, he won't play. It's as simple as that. They are not going to keep their asset on the bench to waste away and get no financial reward when they decide to sell.You could but the general point, not limited to TFM, is still nonsense. The requirements of a player in most roles are vastly different at a Man utd vs a Fulham. That's without going into the incentive aspect of it. A player on loan needs to be considerably better than other options to get game time which is totally different to your parent club because there's no incentive to develop you.
He has to be sold and I can't think of a better move than Ajax. As long as we put ourselves in a decent position to sign him if he becomes a top player, I don't see a problem.I would like to know what Solskjaer's take on the lad is before we consider selling him. He's looked pretty decent in spells but has had some proper poor loan spells at teams not doing so well.
Why does he have to be sold? What if Solskjær think's he can get him playing well enough next season to be cover for us on the right? I don't see the point in selling someone if they can play for us in some capacity. Which is why I think we should give Solskjær a pre-season with him at least. If we decide to sell after that then he's had a fair chance.He has to be sold and I can't think of a better move than Ajax. As long as we put ourselves in a decent position to sign him if he becomes a top player, I don't see a problem.
He's not going to play enough for us as it is.
There's also Dalot. We are not even sure if RB or CB is Mensah's best position. I think he could be a very good CB. Imo, any move that sees him playing as much as possible is the best for him. He'll be 22 this year.Why does he have to be sold? What if Solskjær think's he can get him playing well enough next season to be cover for us on the right? I don't see the point in selling someone if they can play for us in some capacity. Which is why I think we should give Solskjær a pre-season with him at least. If we decide to sell after that then he's had a fair chance.
Well exactly, I think he's said his best position is DCM, which would be great if he could do a Kante role there for us, as well as the added versatility of filling in at CB or RB when needed.There's also Dalot. We are not even sure if RB or CB is Mensah's best position. I think he could be a very good CB. Imo, any move that sees him playing as much as possible is the best for him. He'll be 22 this year.
Eh? What are you on about? You wouldn't swap TFM for De Ligt?They want a straight swap with De Ligt. Ajax are really breaking our balls. If Woody does this I lose all respect for him.
Really? Wow, just wow.Not good enough for Palace and Fulham, says it all really. Good riddance.
Why is that wow? it's true. How can he expect to be good enough for us if he can't make it at lower clubs.Really? Wow, just wow.