The obsession with dropping Mason Greenwood to the bench

RedSky

Shepherd’s Delight
Scout
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
74,141
Location
Hereford FC (Soccermanager)
We're going to be playing 50-55 odd games this season in a very compact schedule, Mason can't play every game, heck we should be looking for him tbe playing 50-65% of the season to ensure he isn't burned out. Greenwood should be backup for Rashford/Martial and our RW. It would still give him plenty of minutes, I don't really understand why people seem intent on pushing him too soon, probably the same people who will immediately slate him when he gets in a rut after being fatigued.
 

amolbhatia50k

Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
Joined
Nov 8, 2002
Messages
95,336
Location
india
@Skills It's simply an excuse to get Sancho. If Sancho didn't exist there's no way we'd be thinking of benching Greenwood. [/B]Sancho and Greenwood are of similar ages anyway so the age thing doesn't make sense.

People balked at Willian if I recall correctly, who would actually have been a good RW player to rotate with Greenwood, and on a free transfer as well. So I doubt it was about rotation.
Wrong on so many counts. Nobody wants Greenwood relegated to the bench. He can get in ahead of anyone in the front line depending from week to week.

And I believe regardless of Sancho that we needed a RW. A proper one, given all our forwards are strikers. Of course someone as good as Sancho had to be the main target but he didn't create the need for a right winger.
 

mancan92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
10,211
Location
Loughborough university
It started off being about not having a starting RW and thus needing Sancho, and from there evolved into needing options for the forward positions. One of which, of course, had to be Sancho. That's why options like Dembele and Sarr were recieved quite poorly: people were making a comparison with Sancho all the time, so it clearly wasn't purely about depth.

And of course years ago we'd balk at Willian as first choice RW, but if the aim was actually to give Greenwood enough rest and rotation to not burn him out, then I don't see why we would balk at Willian. Unless that is, we're comparing him to Sancho, in which case he's a significant downgrade.
I mean it is that and the fact that greenwood isn't a rw he is a striker. So we should look for a specialist in that position especially when it's clear we need creativity from that side
 

GiddyUp

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
4,897
In the midst of all the negativity surrounding the club, which I'm trying to stay the feck away from, I'm having actual dreams at night about this boy scoring fantastic goals, doing outrageous things.
He is going to be a superstar and a much smarter player then Rashford. The future is bright for our young players as long as they don't get ahead if themselves and treat it like a bit of a laugh like some. It would be really nice to see them play with a smile on their faces so I'm hoping this is rock bottom for us and the only way is up. All the sulking and bullshit surrounding the club does more harm than good for these boys. So proper management is vital as I believe that hasn't happened with Rashford.
He definitely has the wow factor and hopefully he can be that player to hit 30 goals a season regularly for this club.
 

He'sRaldo

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
3,198
@mancan92 @amolbhatia50k

Don't get me wrong those are decent and valid reasons. I simply think the end goal was signing Sancho, and thus many justifications were given for replacing Greenwood in the lineup:

i) Greenwood is too young and needs to not burnout.
ii) We need a specialist RW, Greenwood is a striker not a RW.
iii) Our depth in the forward positions is bad/ the forward players are young and inconsistent, and need competition for places.
iv) Sancho is an English generational talent, we shouldn't miss him if we can afford it.
etc.

As you can see in this very thread varying reasons have been given. If Sancho didn't exist and Greenwood had the same breakout last season, I'm skeptical that there would be a pressing need to sign a specialist RW to take his place. Depth I can understand, but then the depth options presented during the window were pretty much scorned for not being Sancho, so I'm skeptical on that front as well.

For fans of Utd especially, I see no other logical reason why we'd try to push out an academy player who broke through with flying colours scoring 17 goals, except muppet season. And to be clear I too would have liked to sign Sancho, but simply because of reason (iv) which I feel is a more honest reason than the others.
 

mancan92

Full Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
10,211
Location
Loughborough university
@mancan92 @amolbhatia50k

Don't get me wrong those are decent and valid reasons. I simply think the end goal was signing Sancho, and thus many justifications were given for replacing Greenwood in the lineup:

i) Greenwood is too young and needs to not burnout.
ii) We need a specialist RW, Greenwood is a striker not a RW.
iii) Our depth in the forward positions is bad/ the forward players are young and inconsistent, and need competition for places.
iv) Sancho is an English generational talent, we shouldn't miss him if we can afford it.
etc.

As you can see in this very thread varying reasons have been given. If Sancho didn't exist and Greenwood had the same breakout last season, I'm skeptical that there would be a pressing need to sign a specialist RW to take his place. Depth I can understand, but then the depth options presented during the window were pretty much scorned for not being Sancho, so I'm skeptical on that front as well.

For fans of Utd especially, I see no other logical reason why we'd try to push out an academy player who broke through with flying colours scoring 17 goals, except muppet season. And to be clear I too would have liked to sign Sancho, but simply because of reason (iv) which I feel is a more honest reason than the others.
@mancan92 @amolbhatia50k

Don't get me wrong those are decent and valid reasons. I simply think the end goal was signing Sancho, and thus many justifications were given for replacing Greenwood in the lineup:

i) Greenwood is too young and needs to not burnout.
ii) We need a specialist RW, Greenwood is a striker not a RW.
iii) Our depth in the forward positions is bad/ the forward players are young and inconsistent, and need competition for places.
iv) Sancho is an English generational talent, we shouldn't miss him if we can afford it.
etc.

As you can see in this very thread varying reasons have been given. If Sancho didn't exist and Greenwood had the same breakout last season, I'm skeptical that there would be a pressing need to sign a specialist RW to take his place. Depth I can understand, but then the depth options presented during the window were pretty much scorned for not being Sancho, so I'm skeptical on that front as well.

For fans of Utd especially, I see no other logical reason why we'd try to push out an academy player who broke through with flying colours scoring 17 goals, except muppet season. And to be clear I too would have liked to sign Sancho, but simply because of reason (iv) which I feel is a more honest reason than the others.
The way I see things is with Sancho coming in it doesn't affect greenwood because given form or depending on injuries I'd have no problem swapping out martial or rashford for sancho. So it's not a replacement for greenwood at all just acknowledgement that he can't play every game and the position he is currently playing isn't his natural position.
 

dev1l

Full Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
9,598
I don't see any "obsession" in Greenwood doesn't starting every game. There are much more serious "obsessives"over here :)
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
I want to see him start every fecking match. Apart from the Mickey Mouse Cups that is!
if we are playing a top team, he’s in our best 11. But I don’t want to see him start every game, he needs to be managed, and we did a very good job of that last season and I expect it to continue.
 

Ubik

Nothing happens until something moves!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
18,759
I'm pretty sure we'd have paid up for Sancho if we didn't have him.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
7,099
Imagine buying a £108 winger just for the sake of rotation. The Caf plays too much FM.
People need to be honest with themselves and say it's for the starting xi, yes even at the cost of Mason's minites. If rotation was the goal Pellstri and Diallo would have been enough to satisfy , those are real rotation signings. It's not like Sancho was actually going to be rotated for PL or CL games if fit
 
Last edited:

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
11,531
No it's not an obsession. He needs to be managed properly and it's probably the only thing Ole has done right at the club.

I am pleased he is not with England now. He needs rest , played far too many games last season.

Buying Cavani is a masterstroke of a decision in as far as developing Greenwood is concerned.
How is that the only thing Ole has done right? And how is this Post liked.

Ole has done a lot more than just doing week with greenwood, why not bash him in this thread too though I suppose
 

UNITED ACADEMY

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
13,127
Supports
Erik ten Hag
Imagine buying a £108 winger just for the sake of rotation. The Caf plays too much FM.
Greenwood, Martial & Rashford are goalscorer not creative winger/attacker. The current front three lack of balance for creativity and that's why the manager wants him. Bruno will offer creativity in the middle, Sancho on the right while Telles on the left, what XI it would have been that we could have creativity in different area. We don't have someone like Trent as our right back then Sancho's quality is needed for our width and he can play both left & right.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Greenwood, Martial & Rashford are goalscorer not creative winger/attacker. The current front three lack of balance for creativity and that's why the manager wants him. Bruno will offer creativity in the middle, Sancho on the right while Telles on the left, what XI it would have been that we could have creativity in different area. We don't have someone like Trent as our right back then Sancho's quality is needed for our width and he can play both left & right.
The reasons are moot. He would still be taking Greenwood's place in the starting XI.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
13,127
Supports
Erik ten Hag
The reasons are moot. He would still be taking Greenwood's place in the starting XI.
Greenwood can play on the left as well and also in the middle. Who said that Greenwood & Sancho can’t play in the starting XI?

Have as many goalscorer as you like but without someone to create chance for the goalscorer then they can’t score.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,372
It's been obvious for ages that you're not a United fan.

Judging by your previous posts, I'm guessing Arsenal. I don't know why you're bothering to pretend, though. This forum is full of oppos. Nobody will think any less of you for it.
Despite it being a quite crude description, he's right sadly. Greenwood is no PL level RW - he's a great goal scorer but is a defensive liability. I don't mean that in a rude way because he's young and also hasn't grown up playing RW but any decent left back will easily find space and create 2 vs 1 on AWB when he plays.

It's clear to get better we need to be far more balanced as a team and there's no controversy to suggest we can find a better RW than Greenwood.
 

Greck

Full Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
7,099
Despite it being a quite crude description, he's right sadly. Greenwood is no PL level RW - he's a great goal scorer but is a defensive liability. I don't mean that in a rude way because he's young and also hasn't grown up playing RW but any decent left back will easily find space and create 2 vs 1 on AWB when he plays.

It's clear to get better we need to be far more balanced as a team and there's no controversy to suggest we can find a better RW than Greenwood.
Bit unfair. How is Sancho's workrate?
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
15,810
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
The reasons are moot. He would still be taking Greenwood's place in the starting XI.
Immediately? Yes, Greenwood would be the one who would drop to the bench at the start of the season. But he would still get a hell of a lot of games and it would quickly become whichever of the four are playing worst would be the one mostly on the bench / playing cup games. That would have been the idea of having the four competing for three spots.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Greenwood can play on the left as well and also in the middle. Who said that Greenwood & Sancho can’t play in the starting XI?

Have as many goalscorer as you like but without someone to create chance for the goalscorer then they can’t score.
Again this is irrelevant. When you add a £108 attacker to an already established front 3, you have 4 players for 3 positions. Someone will cease being first choice no matter how much you rotate.
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
17,372
Bit unfair. How is Sancho's workrate?
Why unfair? Greenwood doesn't have bad workrate, he just doesn't know the role/have a lot of experience there from a defensive or positional standpoint.

A big part of this is also Ole's tactics, the LW & RW are hugely important defensively/offensively but it's such a hard role physically because we play such route one football & we don't ever really keep possession in a meaningful way to tire opponents/let our players recover. We usually win possession, try to move the ball as quickly and directly as possible to attacking players and if that fails we're sprinting back to be in defensive shape and defending again. People often ask why we always struggle physically or can't press and it's because we don't manage games like the better teams.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
No he wouldn't it all depends on how they are performing. If Mason is in better form than martial then he'd be in, if rashford is in poor form Sancho would play on the left greenwood on the right.
The bolded is a bit of contradiction as to see how they perform someone has to be on the bench while the others play. You're just validating the OPs point.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Immediately? Yes, Greenwood would be the one who would drop to the bench at the start of the season. But he would still get a hell of a lot of games and it would quickly become whichever of the four are playing worst would be the one mostly on the bench / playing cup games. That would have been the idea of having the four competing for three spots.
A £108 signing is the first name on the team sheet and bolded is essentially what the OP is saying. If you sign Sancho someone moves to the bench and that player is most likely Greenwood. Again it doesn't matter how much they rotate. Sancho is most likely taking Greenwood's starting spot.

I honestly don't understand the argument.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
Ole should forget about 3 forwards and go with two up front.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
13,127
Supports
Erik ten Hag
Again this is irrelevant. When you add a £108 attacker to an already established front 3, you have 4 players for 3 positions. Someone will cease being first choice no matter how much you rotate.
Nothing is called established front three if there is no balance to get the best out of them. When both Rashford & Mason play wide, they are more of a goalscorer winger. What Ole wants is creator winger to balance his XI which is why 108m isn't for rotation but to get the best out of Greenwood, Rashford or Martial. And Greenwood can take Martial or Rashford spot.
 

Korwas

Full Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
170
If you buy a young star like Sancho it's practically guaranteed that one of Martial, Rashford, Greenwood or even Sancho will leave the club in a few years because they don't want to play from the bench for the rest of their careers. It's another thing if you were to buy Messi or Ronaldo, a older elite player. Then maybe Martial, Rashford and Greenwood will want to stay because they know that they will get their shot as a starter later.
 

Dante

Average bang
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
25,280
Location
My wit's end
This thread is a counter balance to the Martial one:

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/the-constant-media-calls-for-us-to-replace-martial.456655/

United's current front 3 - Martial, Rashford, Greenwood - are ALL wide forwards who all play best 30 yards from goal with the ball at their feet and defenders facing them up.

The idea of buying a proper centreforward like Kane as variety as the fourth option was criticised because it would mean dropping Martial. But the idea of buying another wide forward like Sancho for more of the same is fine even though it would mean dropping Greenwood.
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
15,810
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
A £108 signing is the first name on the team sheet and bolded is essentially what the OP is saying. If you sign Sancho someone moves to the bench and that player is most likely Greenwood. Again it doesn't matter how much they rotate. Sancho is most likely taking Greenwood's starting spot.

I honestly don't understand the argument.
Greenwood plays multiple positions, as does Sancho. It's not a straight competition between them. All four of Martial, Rashford, Sancho and Greenwood would be competing. If (as has been the case since lockdown) Rashford is the one playing the worst then he would regularly be on the bench with either Sancho or Greenwood playing on the left. If it's Martial in poor form then either Greenwood or Rashford would play up front. Overall I would have expected Greenwood to be on the bench a bit more than the others this season but ultimately it's up to him to outperform the others to win a spot. That's good management.

Of course now we've also got Cavani and the two young right wingers so that changes things and we'll see how they all go.
 

Dante

Average bang
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
25,280
Location
My wit's end
Despite it being a quite crude description, he's right sadly. Greenwood is no PL level RW - he's a great goal scorer but is a defensive liability. I don't mean that in a rude way because he's young and also hasn't grown up playing RW but any decent left back will easily find space and create 2 vs 1 on AWB when he plays.

It's clear to get better we need to be far more balanced as a team and there's no controversy to suggest we can find a better RW than Greenwood.
Why unfair? Greenwood doesn't have bad workrate, he just doesn't know the role/have a lot of experience there from a defensive or positional standpoint.

A big part of this is also Ole's tactics, the LW & RW are hugely important defensively/offensively but it's such a hard role physically because we play such route one football & we don't ever really keep possession in a meaningful way to tire opponents/let our players recover. We usually win possession, try to move the ball as quickly and directly as possible to attacking players and if that fails we're sprinting back to be in defensive shape and defending again. People often ask why we always struggle physically or can't press and it's because we don't manage games like the better teams.

Greenwood's workrate is better than Sancho's if anything. Greenwood also gets more tackles in than Salah.
 

AltiUn

likes playing with swords after fantasies
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
23,493
Mentioned this a few weeks ago and got told I was "making it up".
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Nothing is called established front three if there is no balance to get the best out of them. When both Rashford & Mason play wide, they are more of a goalscorer winger. What Ole wants is creator winger to balance his XI which is why 108m isn't for rotation but to get the best out of Greenwood, Rashford or Martial. And Greenwood can take Martial or Rashford spot.
I'm not sure why you keep repeating the point of buying Sancho when I keep reiterating that isn't the point. All 4 won't play at the same time so someone has to make way for Sancho. Given that Greenwood is currently the starter at his position, he is the likely candidate to see his game time cut the most, which makes him a rotation option for the front three.

No offense, but this idea that Sancho brings the best out of them is a useless platitude not relevant to the OP.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Greenwood plays multiple positions, as does Sancho. It's not a straight competition between them. All four of Martial, Rashford, Sancho and Greenwood would be competing. If (as has been the case since lockdown) Rashford is the one playing the worst then he would regularly be on the bench with either Sancho or Greenwood playing on the left. If it's Martial in poor form then either Greenwood or Rashford would play up front. Overall I would have expected Greenwood to be on the bench a bit more than the others this season but ultimately it's up to him to outperform the others to win a spot. That's good management.

Of course now we've also got Cavani and the two young right wingers so that changes things and we'll see how they all go.
The bolded is the OP's point. I'm glad you agree.

And Greenwood has played a total of 1 match from the left wing. Doubt it happens very often regardless of form.
 

Panther

Full Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
1,217
Age aside, he's not even good enough yet to be a starter. Outside of his finishing, he's not very good at all and "benching" him would be because we need an improvement on him. He's also not a winger but a striker.
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
15,810
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
The bolded is the OP's point. I'm glad you agree.

And Greenwood has played a total of 1 match from the left wing. Doubt it happens very often regardless of form.
Starting two and coming on as a sub in two games out of four (which is likely what Greenwood would have been looking at from the beginning) is hardly being dropped to the bench and not playing regular football. Which is what the OP's point was.

As for Greenwood not playing from the left that is partly because we have far stronger options on the left compared to the right where he was our only decent option, so of course he barely played on the left. But also, Sancho would be the one mostly playing on the left with Greenwood on the right in that scenario. Sancho is statistically even better on the left than he is on the right, and in the longterm there would have been a fairly strong chance that that would have been our strongest lineup.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
13,127
Supports
Erik ten Hag
I'm not sure why you keep repeating the point of buying Sancho when I keep reiterating that isn't the point. All 4 won't play at the same time so someone has to make way for Sancho. Given that Greenwood is currently the starter at his position, he is the likely candidate to see his game time cut the most, which makes him a rotation option for the front three.

No offense, but this idea that Sancho brings the best out of them is a useless platitude not relevant to the OP.
If Greenwood is good enough then he shouldn’t be the likely candidate get the game time cut the most.

The point is that 108m will be spent in order to get the best out of Greenwood, Rashford & Martial not for rotation. Surely you don’t want us to just blindly play the three of them together but unable to make them perform, don’t you?
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
Starting two and coming on as a sub in two games out of four (which is likely what Greenwood would have been looking at from the beginning) is hardly being dropped to the bench and not playing regular football. Which is what the OP's point was.
Now I honestly don't have a clue what point you are attempting to make. You should reread the OP and your last post.

Overall I would have expected Greenwood to be on the bench a bit more than the others this season but ultimately it's up to him to outperform the others to win a spot. That's good management.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
If Greenwood is good enough then he shouldn’t be the likely candidate get the game time cut the most.

The point is that 108m will be spent in order to get the best out of Greenwood, Rashford & Martial not for rotation. Surely you don’t want us to just blindly play the three of them together but unable to make them perform, don’t you?
Blindly play them together? What on earth does that have to do with Greenwood making way for Sancho? It would be nice if we got back to the original point.
 

UNITED ACADEMY

New Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
13,127
Supports
Erik ten Hag
Blindly play them together? What on earth does that have to do with Greenwood making way for Sancho? It would be nice if we got back to the original point.
What on earth are you on about.

This is the post that I replied which clearly your own post:

Imagine buying a £108 winger just for the sake of rotation. The Caf plays too much FM.
I think the original point is clear enough to tell you that 108m winger is not for the sake of rotation as what you claimed but actually for the sake of getting the best out of Martial, Rashford & Greenwood.
 

MackRobinson

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
5,134
Location
Terminal D
Supports
Football
What on earth are you on about.

This is the post that I replied which clearly your own post:

I think the original point is clear enough to tell you that 108m winger is not for the sake of rotation as what you claimed but actually for the sake of getting the best out of Martial, Rashford & Greenwood.
1. Obviously a sarcastic post
2. How does it have to do with getting the best out of all 3 when one of them will have to be on the bench playing fewer minutes?

Regardless of what you think will happen, the fact is Sacho would initially replace one of the three, and that said individual will be a rotation option until further notice. The most likely candidate is Greenwood given his position (which is the OPs point). If you don't disagree then we are square.