Did we focus on the wrong area of the pitch in the summer?

[sparx99]

Why did we focus at all? Football teams should buy players in positions they need.

Why ‘fix’ the defence? All areas are part of attacking and defending.

Even if our intention is to sort midfield and attack next summer we should still be making sure our defence is improved again. Whether it’s another CB to replace Bailly or to improve on Lindelof or indeed an upgrade on Luke Shaw or backup LB.

 

[Skills]

Liverpool went from a top4 team to the masters of the universe by "building from the back" with Van Dijk at the helm. He is literally the reason they almost ran away with the league trophy last season, and won the champions league. You know, on top of having a team that suffers very few

I think they did literally the opposite. Firmino, Salah and Mane were bought before they spunked cash on Van Djik, Allison or Fabinho (their 3 most important defensive players).

 

[predator]

He doesn't look out of place now because he learned that role at 19 years old, playing wide wasn't natural for him. And the problem for me is that you talk about a traditional centre forward and name 4 players that are very different which kind of shows that there is an issue with your idea of traditional.

Martial is someone that is good in the box, initially he was good at scoring goals and linking up with players that were around him. He wasn't particularly creative, nor a really good crosser/passer of the ball.

I don't know what to say to that. So he doesn't look out of place now? - forget about his Monaco days.

Henry was a winger turned striker, Ashley young was a winger turned Left back, Tony V the same albeit opposite side of the pitch. It happens.

I mentioned 4 generic strikers at their clubs who bag goals, something we are lacking desperately. Liverpool get away with not having a traditional centre forward (although firmino is close) because they are well coached, solid all round and have a system in place.

I think we need a traditional centre forward. I'd settle for almost any decent rigid targetman. It cant get much worse can it?

 

[JPRouve]

I think they did literally the opposite. Firmino, Salah and Mane were bought before they spunked cash on Van Djik, Allison or Fabinho (their 3 most important defensive players).

Yeah, this claim make absolutely no sense. Liverpool built their front three and attack first, they couldn't defend or control a game for a long time but could destroy any defense.

 

[sparx99]

Liverpool went from a top4 team to the masters of the universe by "building from the back" with Van Dijk at the helm. He is literally the reason they almost ran away with the league trophy last season, and won the champions league. You know, on top of having a team that suffers very few injuries.

As opposed to our glass cannon team where we're so lucky to play about half our preferred starting XI at any given time.

No they didn’t. They had one of the best attacks with Salah, Firmino and Mane.

They built the attack first and added the defence later.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't know what to say to that. So he doesn't look out of place now? - forget about his Monaco days.

Henry was a winger turned striker, Ashley young was a winger turned Left back, Tony V the same albeit opposite side of the pitch. It happens.

I mentioned 4 generic strikers at their clubs who bag goals, something we are lacking desperately. Liverpool get away with not having a traditional centre forward (although firmino is close) because they are well coached, solid all round and have a system in place.

I think we need a traditional centre forward. I'd settle for almost any decent rigid targetman. It cant get much worse can it?

No Henry was a striker that could play wide and wasn't always needed upfront for Monaco because they had Anderson, Trézéguet and Ikpeba. Ashley Young was turned as left back as an emergency at the end of his career, same as Tony V both played most of their career in their natural position and moved when they stopped performing, fullback isn't their natural position. And why would I forgot about his Monaco days, that's where he was developed and where his natural position will come from.

 

[predator]

No Henry was a striker that could play wide and wasn't always needed upfront for Monaco because they had Anderson, Trézéguet and Ikpeba. Ashley Young was turned as left back as an emergency at the end of his career, same as Tony V both played most of their career in their natural position and moved when they stopped performing. And why would I forgot about his Monaco days, that's where he was developed and where his natural position will come from.

There was no need to bring up Martials position from 5 years ago though. Who cares? The point I made was - that relying on Greenwood, Martial and Rashford for goals is inadequate. I dont class them as profilic goalscorers, never mind traditional centre forwards - at this moment in time.

 

[JPRouve]

There was no need to bring up Martials position from 5 years ago though. Who cares? The point I made was - that relying on Greenwood, Martial and Rashford for goals is inadequate. I dont class them as profilic goalscorers, never mind traditional centre forwards - at this moment in time.

You questioned the natural roles, it's not a matter of actuality but something that is supposed to be innate otherwise the term natural has no sense at all.

 

[predator]

You questioned the natural roles, it's not a matter of actuality but something that is supposed to be innate otherwise the term natural has no sense at all.

I have no idea what you are talking about mate. I think you're reading too much into it.

Footballers change position alot, depending on their physical, technical growth and simply if their manager plays them elsewhere for a significant period of time.

I know Martial was a striker at Monaco and before that. Whilst playing for united he has mainly been played on the wing and personally I understand why - he is probably the best dribbler (at speed) in the league, can beat a man, technically amazing.

As a goalscorer, however, I have doubts regarding his efficiency and more so the type of defending you see in the prem AND also how systemically hopeless we are.

 

[sherrinford]

On what basis was not signing a striker justified?
And, yes, Rashford and martial are tragically our most established goalscorers which tells you everything about the state of the club.

Just to confirm - we are talking about the same club right?

I followed up that statement with said justifications? If your two principal attacking players are both primarily strikers, and secondarily left-sided players, and you play with one striker, one left-sided attacker, one right-sided attacker and a no.10, then it stands to reason that the priority in terms of attacking signings is not a striker.

Also, a ‘goalscorer’ is not a position.

We need Martial back and Rashford to rediscover his form. And we need to buy a no.10 and a right winger.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Said it before the window that our nr. 1 priority must be to buy a central midfielder.

In all the other positions we had at least 1 player that was not a big issue.

Having a good midfield will hide many of the other deficiencies in a team and impacts every other position of the team (not GK that much) when playing.

 

[predator]

I followed up that statement with said justifications? If your two principal attacking players are both primarily strikers, and secondarily left-sided players, and you play with one striker, one left-sided attacker, one right-sided attacker and a no.10, then it stands to reason that the priority in terms of attacking signings is not a striker.

Also, a ‘goalscorer’ is not a position.

We need Martial back and Rashford to rediscover his form. And we need to buy a no.10 and a right winger.

Nonsense.

Relying on Martial to return from an injury and Rashford to rediscover his form? Injuries and bad form is part and parcel of the game, every team has them. We should be well equipped to deal with such problems - which we aren't, hence why I was astounded to see Ole not sign a striker or 2.

There is nothing justifiable about our inept attack.

 

[jackal&hyde]

Good thread this. My opinion is that it doesn't matter from a club/ build a team point of view. But from a manager point of view, it matters a lot. Few people give a toss now that we are amongst the best teams in the league in terms of chances conceded against. Klopp was probably smarter in focusing first on the attack, and people like the general play even though they finished 8th. We as fans prefer to see a 2-3 defeat then a 1-1 draw or 0-1 defeat.

If you focus on attack first and lose a lot of goals and games, people will call the manager naive (Flopp) but most of all they will say they see an "evolution", if you instead focus on the defense while the mid and attack is crap, people will call you a nothing manager, like they do with Ole.

I really do hope that Ole has a genuine plan with the board and is allowed to fallow through with that because if not, he has really missed a big point by focusing on the defense knowing that fans can't tolerate a United team that doesn't create chances.

 

[romufc]

Nonsense.

Relying on Martial to return from an injury and Rashford to rediscover his form? Injuries and bad form is part and parcel of the game, every team has them. We should be well equipped to deal with such problems - which we aren't, hence why I was astounded to see Ole not sign a striker or 2.

There is nothing justifiable about our inept attack.

I am sure most teams rely on their first team attackers to keep form / stay fit at least 2/3. We cannot afford to have a squad like City's so please don't draw comparisons to that.

Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea all have their main players and if 2/3 of their attackers are injured they would struggle too.

Can you Imagine Bobby inured and Mane out of form?
Laccazete injured and Auba out of form?
Kane Injured and Son out of form?

We all know we should have signed another attacker in the summer.

Does this mean you wouldn't want Greenwood to start?

 

[Isotope]

I think they did literally the opposite. Firmino, Salah and Mane were bought before they spunked cash on Van Djik, Allison or Fabinho (their 3 most important defensive players).

Yeh. It's a bit shallow to just use Liverpol trophy season and what players they bought then. It seems like they forgot or wasn't there when SAF dominating the League by building an attacking force that could score 9 goals a game.

 

[acnumber9]

Remember how all of last season we kept hearing a Ball playing CB would unlock the attack. If we didn't buy one people would have been fuming

That was always an idiotic premise though. Aguero and De Bruyne aren’t great because of John Stones.

 

[predator]

I am sure most teams rely on their first team attackers to keep form / stay fit at least 2/3. We cannot afford to have a squad like City's so please don't draw comparisons to that.

Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea all have their main players and if 2/3 of their attackers are injured they would struggle too.

Can you Imagine Bobby inured and Mane out of form?
Laccazete injured and Auba out of form?
Kane Injured and Son out of form?

We all know we should have signed another attacker in the summer.

Does this mean you wouldn't want Greenwood to start?

We may not be able to afford a squad like cities but we have more money than the other 18 teams in the league and to think otherwise is worrying.

Regarding Greenwood, we dont really have a choice, do we?

I want the club to get its act together. We pay the highest wages and have recently broke the world transfer record. There is no excuse for us being so hopeless in attack. I couldnt care less if it means the end of academy products - the club comes first.

 

[sherrinford]

Nonsense.

Relying on Martial to return from an injury and Rashford to rediscover his form? Injuries and bad form is part and parcel of the game, every team has them. We should be well equipped to deal with such problems - which we aren't, hence why I was astounded to see Ole not sign a striker or 2.

There is nothing justifiable about our inept attack.

What on earth are you talking about? I’m saying priorities in attack have to be no.10 and right wing. How many players do you want/ expect United to sign in one window?

 

[Untd55]

Someone mentioned hindsight earlier, but that was the exact point of this thread. If we were going to only sign three players, would it have been better to sign them in striker and midfielder positions instead, particularly considering the loss of Herrera and the sale of Lukaku? I have extrapolated our results this season against last season and it is not good reading for the current side.

Last Season:
Points - 66
Goals Scored - 65
Goals Conceded - 54
Goal Difference - 11

With our transfer activity in the summer:
Points - 42
Goals Scored - 42
Goals Conceded - 38
Goal Difference - 4

Going by the current transfer window, we have spent £130m on defence to reduce goals conceded by 16. However, the loss of certain players (predominantly, Lukaku and Herrera) may result in a loss of 23 goals scored. This could result in a goal difference of 7 worse than the previous season. We also have to consider that these goals include the 4 scored against Chelsea, which is a result that is turning out to be an aberration; so, the goals scored are potentially inflated.

I will stand by my idea that making signings in midfield and striker would have improved us more than in defence. These signings should have been replacements for Lukaku and Herrera. Had we been able to improve upon them, we likely would have increased our goals scored and probably slightly reduced the amount conceded. I think it was the wrong decision to not build the midfield and attack first - I feel there would have been a net benefit in terms of results/goals scored and conceded etc (at the moment, we are seeing a net loss) and we would have had a greater chance of seeing more entertaining and attacking football, since the attack and midfield is where the majority of entertainment comes from.

 

[romufc]

Someone mentioned hindsight earlier, but that was the exact point of this thread. If we were going to only sign three players, would it have been better to sign them in striker and midfielder positions instead, particularly considering the loss of Herrera and the sale of Lukaku? I have extrapolated our results this season against last season and it is not good reading for the current side.

Last Season:
Points - 66
Goals Scored - 65
Goals Conceded - 54
Goal Difference - 11

With our transfer activity in the summer:
Points - 42
Goals Scored - 42
Goals Conceded - 38
Goal Difference - 4

Going by the current transfer window, we have spent £130m on defence to reduce goals conceded by 16. However, the loss of certain players (predominantly, Lukaku and Herrera) may result in a loss of 23 goals scored. This could result in a goal difference of 7 worse than the previous season. We also have to consider that these goals include the 4 scored against Chelsea, which is a result that is turning out to be an aberration; so, the goals scored are potentially inflated.

I will stand by my idea that making signings in midfield and striker would have improved us more than in defence. These signings should have been replacements for Lukaku and Herrera. Had we been able to improve upon them, we likely would have increased our goals scored and probably slightly reduced the amount conceded. I think it was the wrong decision to not build the midfield and attack first - I feel there would have been a net benefit in terms of results/goals scored and conceded etc (at the moment, we are seeing a net loss) and we would have had a greater chance of seeing more entertaining and attacking football, since the attack and midfield is where the majority of entertainment comes from.

This is probably one of the worst ways of judging signings.

So you want to take the 4 goals scored against Chelsea but count every goal Lukaku and Herrera scored? very good logic.

It was clear for a VERY long time we needed to improve at the back, young at RB was poor and our CB pairings were poor.

Yes, we should have spent more in midfield and attack but that doesn't mean the defence was fine. We conceded 50 plus goals last year.

 

[Untd55]

This is probably one of the worst ways of judging signings.

So you want to take the 4 goals scored against Chelsea but count every goal Lukaku and Herrera scored? very good logic.

It was clear for a VERY long time we needed to improve at the back, young at RB was poor and our CB pairings were poor.

Yes, we should have spent more in midfield and attack but that doesn't mean the defence was fine. We conceded 50 plus goals last year.

I didn't take the goals out, but it is clearly an aberration, there is no arguing against that.

I never said every goal scored would be scored by Herrera and Lukaku, but it is clear there is a drastic drop in goals scored. With those two being the most notable absentees from the first team, it is pretty clear that selling them without replacements has had a massive negative impact on goal scoring.

We signed three players in the summer. My point is that if we were only going to sign three, whilst losing Herrera and Lukaku, the replacements should have taken priority over any other position. It was pretty obvious that it was going to take a massive toll on results.

The goals conceded were not all down to the defence, either. It was also due to poor goalkeeping at times and the midfield not being able to assert itself. That midfield is even worse this season without Herrera, so defensive signings are going to be limited in the amount they can improve the team.

Yes, we still would have needed defenders eventually, but I feel we have done it the wrong way around.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Someone mentioned hindsight earlier, but that was the exact point of this thread. If we were going to only sign three players, would it have been better to sign them in striker and midfielder positions instead, particularly considering the loss of Herrera and the sale of Lukaku? I have extrapolated our results this season against last season and it is not good reading for the current side.

Last Season:
Points - 66
Goals Scored - 65
Goals Conceded - 54
Goal Difference - 11

With our transfer activity in the summer:
Points - 42
Goals Scored - 42
Goals Conceded - 38
Goal Difference - 4

Going by the current transfer window, we have spent £130m on defence to reduce goals conceded by 16. However, the loss of certain players (predominantly, Lukaku and Herrera) may result in a loss of 23 goals scored. This could result in a goal difference of 7 worse than the previous season. We also have to consider that these goals include the 4 scored against Chelsea, which is a result that is turning out to be an aberration; so, the goals scored are potentially inflated.

I will stand by my idea that making signings in midfield and striker would have improved us more than in defence. These signings should have been replacements for Lukaku and Herrera. Had we been able to improve upon them, we likely would have increased our goals scored and probably slightly reduced the amount conceded. I think it was the wrong decision to not build the midfield and attack first - I feel there would have been a net benefit in terms of results/goals scored and conceded etc (at the moment, we are seeing a net loss) and we would have had a greater chance of seeing more entertaining and attacking football, since the attack and midfield is where the majority of entertainment comes from.

It is more a question about the number players signed. 3 players, regardless of quality, would never have been enough.
In hindsight (some people argued that spending large sum on only two players like Maguire and AWB would not fill the needs for getting a starting 11 without glaring problems) we prioritized wrong. And with Pogbas injury this has been made more clearly.

Let say that the club worked with a fixed budget this summer with the £££ from Lukaku (we all knew he was not going to stay here this season) giving us a total of £150m on transfers. How can one justify spending £130m on two defenders when we have one midfielder able to pass the ball, and Martial as the only playable attacking player that can function as anything other than a counterattacking player?

People say that we had a good summer window. I don't see it.
OGS stated that he wanted to press high, meaning that the team would need to employ a high line to force a long ball. If the high press fail, the need for mobile central defenders are crucial unless they are able to anticipate and drop deep. We signed the least mobile central defender in the league on the basis on his strength in the air, winning mentality and ability on the ball. What is the point of having a central defender with ability on the ball when your midfield can't do sh*t with it? Whats the reasoning for having two slow central defenders when trying to employ a high press?

Additionally we bought a fullback that does not function in attack, on the same side where our "winger" is drifting inside to create space for an attacking fullback. With the players currently in the squad we would have been better off tactically and pointswise by having Mourinho as our manager and his pragmatic approach.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

It is more a question about the number players signed. 3 players, regardless of quality, would never have been enough.
In hindsight (some people argued that spending large sum on only two players like Maguire and AWB would not fill the needs for getting a starting 11 without glaring problems) we prioritized wrong. And with Pogbas injury this has been made more clearly.

Let say that the club worked with a fixed budget this summer with the £££ from Lukaku (we all knew he was not going to stay here this season) giving us a total of £150m on transfers. How can one justify spending £130m on two defenders when we have one midfielder able to pass the ball, and Martial as the only playable attacking player that can function as anything other than a counterattacking player?

People say that we had a good summer window. I don't see it.
OGS stated that he wanted to press high, meaning that the team would need to employ a high line to force a long ball. If the high press fail, the need for mobile central defenders are crucial unless they are able to anticipate and drop deep. We signed the least mobile central defender in the league on the basis on his strength in the air, winning mentality and ability on the ball. What is the point of having a central defender with ability on the ball when your midfield can't do sh*t with it? Whats the reasoning for having two slow central defenders when trying to employ a high press?

Additionally we bought a fullback that does not function in attack, on the same side where our "winger" is drifting inside to create space for an attacking fullback. With the players currently in the squad we would have been better off tactically and pointswise by having Mourinho as our manager and his pragmatic approach.

Signing Maguire was because we need a leadership at the back. It was explained by Castle that Mourinho thinks signing two young ones (Bailly & Lindelof) weren’t enough, he needed an experienced one with leadership skills. And Ole seems to be on the same page as well. Beside, we need a ball playing centre back. Lindelof was never really impressed me. I believe signing Maguire is good additional because we need leadership in the team and I’m expecting him to be nominated as our captain next season after one full season with us.

As for Herrera & Lukaku replacement.

We were aiming for Rabiot as our midfield target, we failed to get him. So we went to Longstaff but Newcastle priced him twice more than what we wanted.

We had enough money, we didn’t rely on Maguire’s money or our budget from Lukaku’s because we had a deal with Juventus for the swap deal with Dybala. We could use Lukaku’s money to actually buy a replacement.

It looks to me that Ed is to blamed for failing to secure our target. This summer window wasn’t the first time happened. A centre back & The right right back should have been signed last year not this year. Instead we wasted the money on Dalot & Fred. It’s madness to sign 2 right backs in 2 summer windows in a row.

 

[SungSam7]

If that area is trying to sign players who had no intention of signing for United then yes. But we needed to sign defensive players that stay fit and are actually reliable. However, this team needs a massive overhaul, something I don't think the Glazers really want to hear or do.
Hiring Woodward was a good and a bad thing for them, he was a short term gain but in the long term when the team starts to show cracks, don't think he's the man to lead the club forward.
City for example, instead of bragging about major sponsorship deals bragged about having the top of the range training facility...

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Signing Maguire was because we need a leadership at the back. It was explained by Castle that Mourinho thinks signing two young ones (Bailly & Lindelof) weren’t enough, he needed an experienced one with leadership skills. And Ole seems to be on the same page as well. Beside, we need a ball playing centre back. Lindelof was never really impressed me.

As for Herrera & Lukaku replacement.

We were aiming for Rabiot as our midfield target, we failed to get him. So we went to Longstaff but Newcastle priced him twice more than what we wanted.

We had enough money, we didn’t rely on Maguire’s money or our budget from Lukaku’s because we had a deal with Juventus for the swap deal with Dybala. We could use Lukaku’s money to actually buy a replacement.

It looks to me that Ed is to blamed for failing to secure our target. This summer window wasn’t the first time happened.

So there are only 2 midfielders that would suit us? Roca, Sensi, Barella, Pellegrini, Partey, Grillitsch? 3 of these had/has clauses.

Could have brought Alderweireld (if he was willing) for £25m. Better passer, more experienced, more mobile than a Moai, played in a high pressing system and able to play out from the back.

The players we bought are in no way compatible with the way the most successful teams play football today. Maybe benchmarking some teams that performs well today like Liverpool (sad, but true), City and Bayern might have given us some pointers of how to approach the type of football that functions, what type of abilities players need in each position? Only positive i can take from this attempt at rebuild is that we are becoming less and less desirable as an asset for the Glazers and they might start thinking about selling before the value plummets.

 

[Cassidy]

We certainly needed to prioritise RB, however Im not convinced we needed a CB more than we needed a CDM and RW.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

So there are only 2 midfielders that would suit us? Roca, Sensi, Barella, Pellegrini, Partey, Grillitsch? 3 of these had/has clauses.

Could have brought Alderweireld (if he was willing) for £25m. Better passer, more experienced, more mobile than a Moai, played in a high pressing system and able to play out from the back.

The players we bought are in no way compatible with the way the most successful teams play football today. Maybe benchmarking some teams that performs well today like Liverpool (sad, but true), City and Bayern might have given us some pointers of how to approach the type of football that functions, what type of abilities players need in each position? Only positive i can take from this attempt at rebuild is that we are becoming less and less desirable as an asset for the Glazers and they might start thinking about selling before the value plummets.

I don’t know what’s our list. However, we were reported by tier 1 journalist Ornstein that we were in on at least a midfielder and it’s not depending on Pogba leaving. It means our manager did want an improvement in our midfield. We are being very careful with our signings obviously since we don’t want to make another mistake again on Fred, Schneiderlin & Matic.

Alderweireld? You are one of those crazy guy who thinks he’s a better signing. The guy is 30 years old and only has probably 1-2 years left before he becomes a deadwood, haven’t you learn from Matic’s signing before? Look at him now, he’s been abysmal. Maguire on the other hand, better for long term & been having a better season than Alderweireld so far.

Regardless whatever the cost Maguire was, we still had money left to sign midfield & attacker or at least one of them.

Do we need to sign an experienced centre back with leadership? Yes!
Was Maguire a better choice than Alderweireld? Based on age & this season performance, Yes!
Did we aim to replace Herrera? Yes!
Did Maguire’s fees depend on Lukaku’s fees? No! We had a deal with Juve for swap deal with Dybala.

 

[Fosu-Mens]

I don’t know what’s our list. However, we were reported by tier 1 journalist Ornstein that we were in on at least a midfielder and it’s not depending on Pogba leaving. It means our manager did want an improvement in our midfield. We are being very careful with our signings obviously since we don’t want to make another mistake again on Fred, Schneiderlin & Matic.

Alderweireld? You are one of those crazy guy who thinks he’s a better signing. The guy is 30 years old and only has probably 1-2 years left before he becomes a deadwood, haven’t you learn from Matic’s signing before? Look at him now, he’s been abysmal. Maguire on the other hand, better for long term & been having a better season than Alderweireld so far.

Regardless whatever the cost Maguire was, we still had money left to sign midfield & attacker or at least one of them.

Do we need to sign an experienced centre back with leadership? Yes!
Was Maguire a better choice than Alderweireld? Based on age & this season performance, Yes!
Did we aim to replace Herrera? Yes!
Did Maguire’s fees depend on Lukaku’s fees? No! We had a deal with Juve for swap deal with Dybala.

Obviously the Lukaku-Juventus deal was to force Inters hand. And i think that the reports regarding us having a maximum of £100m to spend is true. If Maguires deal was independent on Lukaku being sold, then why was he not signed at the start of the summer?

Difference between signing a central defender and a central midfielder regarding age and regression. Matic was already slow as midfielders go before we signed him, overused and rushed back early after injuries. Comparing him with Alderweireld and the futuristic uncertainy regarding how and when he will regress physically is not easy.

If we aimed to play Mourinho-esque football, then Maguire would have been a good signing and a good fit given the preference to defend from crosses, compact team and little/no room to take advantage of his lack of mobility. Not with a team aiming to play with a high press and subsequently higher line. Add in that our midfield is not good and will struggle to be compact with PPs erratic pressing and play...

Maguire is overrated imo as a centreback for a team aiming to press intensive and high pressing football, especially when the rest of the team is unable to pass between them making his ball playing abilities not that important.

 

[Jev]

We definitely needed a right-back. That signing was one of the highest priorities. But considering how light-weight we are in midfield an attack, I think it would have been a much bigger upgrade to get a Maguire calibre player in one of those positions instead. So to answer the topic question: Yes.

 

[JJ12]

We needed everything.

We still need a LB

2/3 midfielders

2/3 forwards

1 manager

1 CEO

1 Owner.

We'll be okay then.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Obviously the Lukaku-Juventus deal was to force Inters hand. And i think that the reports regarding us having a maximum of £100m to spend is true. If Maguires deal was independent on Lukaku being sold, then why was he not signed at the start of the summer?

Difference between signing a central defender and a central midfielder regarding age and regression. Matic was already slow as midfielders go before we signed him, overused and rushed back early after injuries. Comparing him with Alderweireld and the futuristic uncertainy regarding how and when he will regress physically is not easy.

If we aimed to play Mourinho-esque football, then Maguire would have been a good signing and a good fit given the preference to defend from crosses, compact team and little/no room to take advantage of his lack of mobility. Not with a team aiming to play with a high press and subsequently higher line. Add in that our midfield is not good and will struggle to be compact with PPs erratic pressing and play...

Maguire is overrated imo as a centreback for a team aiming to press intensive and high pressing football, especially when the rest of the team is unable to pass between them making his ball playing abilities not that important.

Obviously? You are making things up here. Lukaku & Dybala deal was deal done reported by tier 1. While 100m spend news came from a non-reliable source. If we only have 100m then I don't know how we even have an idea to sign Sancho before the window was started and this Sancho's signing came from a tier 1 Ornstein.

Aldeweireld is having an abysmal season right now. The sign has shown already. And Maguire has been the better player this season.

You are totally talking non sense & jump into conclusion quickly. We had Bailly & Tuanzebe who are quick enough to be Maguire's ideal partnership. There is no evidence that Lindelof will even cement his spot ahead of Tuanzebe. Beside, our defense has been the positive thing and it worked well against team with a high press and subsequently high line such as Chelsea & Leicester City.

 

[Van Piorsing]

Why did we focus at all? Football teams should buy players in positions they need.

Why ‘fix’ the defence? All areas are part of attacking and defending.

Even if our intention is to sort midfield and attack next summer we should still be making sure our defence is improved again. Whether it’s another CB to replace Bailly or to improve on Lindelof or indeed an upgrade on Luke Shaw or backup LB.

Well said.

 

[TRUERED89]

Agreed. I mean how can anyone even attempt to argue this? We had no genuine RB for years and were making do with Ashley Young who everyone knows is diabolical at RB. Then we had everyone on the forum complaining about Jones and Smalling for months if not years. First choice CB and RB were 100% required in the Summer.

The error was simply not backing the Manager enough when it was clear we were going to struggle in midfield with the sale of Fellaini and Herrera leaving. Given that Matic looked poor at the end of the last season too it was pretty obvious we were going to be left with no options. We're basically limping our way to the Winter window where no doubt we'll correct the Summer window and bring in at least a CM and probably a CF.

Cant say I'm 100% convinced we will, with Ed at the helm. Maybe Mandzukic and that's about it .

 

[Bestietom]

If it is a 3 year plan as was said, then maybe Ole and Phelan thought the Backline was the way to start.
Now I would have started with the spine. A CB, CM, CF. would have been my first 3 signings. Then fill around these, in the next window.

 

[Lentwood]

Not really, if we had bought attackers people would have said we needed defenders

Although if Ole could have predicted Martial and Pogba’s injuries I’m sure that might have enforced another buy

 

[broccoli]

Don't think your transfer dealings were any proof of a footballing vision or long term plan. Maguire was a no brainer and the others are very young, but they are clearly more suited to a counter attack style.

I'd say especially AWB is not a big team right back and even James will always be quite innefective against more defensive sides, but they still have time to improve although it's difficult.

 

[Seb burrow]

The simple matter of the fact is we did recruit well in the area we needed.

But when you let players leave and don’t replace them you create new problems.

Liverpool in their rebuilding faze didn’t let that many players leave. Especially ones of any quality (except coutinho) but they replaced him with a lot of good signings.

Our board are so incompetent it’s untrue to think they have allowed these situations to materials. Not to mention pay them as much as they do.

 

[ManchesterYoda]

I don't think James is a good signing at all. Maguire and Wan-Bissaka are decent signings but I don't think our priority was CB or RB and it definitely wasn't LW. Priority was RW > CM > ST > LB and we bought CB, RB and LW. For RB we had Valencia, Young, Darmian and Dalot. For LB we have only Shaw.

 

[ManchesterYoda]

Remember when Guardiola signed 3 FBs at once? We need to sign TWO right sided attacking players and a striker. Those are the 3 forward players we need.

 

[GBBQ]

No they didn’t. They had one of the best attacks with Salah, Firmino and Mane.

They built the attack first and added the defence later.

Without the solid defence, the world class attack wasn't enough to deliver trophies. So in effect, until we address both attack and defence we would have gaps. if we added in a top striker and right wing we'd be probably giving out about Smalling and Darmian being the weak links.