selling a player after a season of not playing is a terrible idea.
You surely can’t claim it to be a failed experiment when he never got a run of games
Mason Mount's Misfortune
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
You surely can’t claim it to be a failed experiment when he never got a run of games
I just don't see where he ever fitted in
We had a lot of other holes to fill, so it wasn’t the right signing to make at that time. At all. But I do reject the notion that is implied here, that a player has to be signed for where they “fit in” to the first xi. A top club is playing 55-65 games a season. It’s a squad game. Having a quality homegrown player like Mount in the squad is not something that I call a problem. When fit, he doesn’t have to always start. And when he does, he can play several positions. City have players like Grealish and Foden on the bench half the time, and we can’t have Mount? These days you really need two quality players in every position and Mount covers AM, LF and potentially even RW. He’s yet to really prove himself as a viable 8, but in reality he only played a handful of games. So it’s too early to judge. So I don’t really agree with this “where does he fit in?” Sentiment, because the answer is….a lot of places.
Imagine for example that Bruno goes down for a couple of months. Mount is a ready made replacement, and good enough that if he hits his top form, could make the position his own. That’s the sort of competition for places a good squad needs.
Reality is that we should’ve signed a 6/8 before we signed Mount, but we didn’t; and now he’s here, there are plenty of ways he can be a valuable squad member. It’s almost quaint these days to think of teams having a first xi. The really good teams have about 15-16 players who are all good enough to be considered starters. And another 6-8 who are good enough to push for contention.
There’s no doubting in my mind that if we’d signed Rice and Olise instead of Mount and Antony, we’d have spent about the same, and be much much better off; but the past is the past. We have a new regime coming in now, so hopefully the decision making will improve.
People forget that Mount just turned 25 a couple of weeks ago. He should have his best years ahead of him.
^ Sensible post!
Still think he is a good player and will eventually be impactful for us when he gets on the pitch under the right manager. But it was the absolute wrong profile of player to sign at the time because of the other holes in the squad we had to fill and the limited funds at our disposal and that is why Ten Hag cannot be trusted with even one pence of additional funds to spend. He has no clue what he is doing.
He started far more games than he was on the bench.
He did come off the bench for three games in April in his unsuccessful return from injury (he then had to go off and have surgery on it), but other than that he was on the bench only 5 times in the entire season while starting 26. If we look at the two months before getting the injury, he started 7 and was on the bench for 3.
Needs to be fully recovered from his injuries. I hope he doesn't become VDB Mk II
He’s a typical signing for us. Money wasted. Always injured. Imagine if we spent that money on a stronger midfielder.
Does feel like a VDB signing. Barely playing and when he does, he’s been bad. Not even an assist yet if I’m not mistaken?
Like VDB too, not many people saw the rationale behind the signing either
But if he is going to end up a good signing they’re doing the right thing by giving him as much time as possible to return and not risking another spell out by rushing him back
According to Ten Hag yesterday, he has been troublimg with the same injury he got in his second game for us. That would really mean we have never seen him play for us in normal form. So I’d say it’s too early to haveany relevant hunches as to how it’s gonna pan out, unless it’s based on seeing him for Chelsea.
I think many had hopes for Van de Beek when he came. He looked like a player who could help us transition into a more proactive team, which we know Solskjær was aiming to do at the time. Ungortunately for him, Solskjær never got that going, and he turned out to lose hisconfidence when his play didn’t pan out and he was struck by injuries.
The only reason I can think of for signing this guy is, in the medium term, the club is planning to sell Bruno.
Mount's best position is the one Bruno plays. Mount and Bruno in midfield is too lightweight.
Mount is not a deep playmaker or a midfield battler. We did not need him and, given how tight our FFP position was last summer, serious questions need to be asked about why we spent £50m on a profile of player we didn't need.
Right now, if Mainoo were absent for a few games, we'd have to change our entire playing style because we only have one of his type in the squad. Why didn't we get someone who could rotate with him with that £50m? More bizarre 'squad building'.
I swear it seems like some of you lot want this transfer to be a flop.
They do. You'll find it is the people that were against the transfer in the first place, so they want to be proven right, as though it gives them some kind of "I know best" credibility.
Some of the lads on here decided he didn't fit in their football manager system six months ago so have to bang on about it every chance they get now.
He is a class player and his time will come, hs just been unfortunate with injuries
No idea what either of you are on about. What’s brought that on?
The killer is that none of this is "hindsight".
Ten Hag going balls-out to sign this guy, and spending 50+ million quid for a player with 1 year left on his contract, was questioned by most of us "clueless" fans at the time who could not see where he would fit into the team, and that the money, time and energy being spent trying to sign Mount might be better placed elsewhere.
But no, we were assured, Erik must have a plan for him, Erik knows best. Did he bollocks!
Ten Hag going balls-out to sign this guy, and spending 50+ million quid for a player with 1 year left on his contract, was questioned by most of us "clueless" fans at the time who could not see where he would fit into the team, and that the money, time and energy being spent trying to sign Mount might be better placed elsewhere.
But no, we were assured, Erik must have a plan for him, Erik knows best. Did he bollocks!
Yeah, stupid Erik for not knowing he'd get injured. What a moron.
60 million down the drain
Armchair fans, right again
100% - he's had a horribly injury hit first season at a massively dysfunctional club, and people are writing him off completely. It's nuts.
I still don't understand why we signed him, but he has a lot to offer and judging him on the last 9 months is stupid
Let’s see him after a run of games. Unfair to judge an injured player.
Even if he returns fully fit. He is hindered by Bruno's incapability of being injured/tired and his captaincy status.
I think if he slotted in against wolves in Bruno's position he would have done well. I think it's unlikely he can do the second midfielder job well.
An academy understudy to Bruno in a more busy fixture schedule would probably be more ideal than a 60M signing of a talented player that can't displace Bruno.
I think if he slotted in against wolves in Bruno's position he would have done well. I think it's unlikely he can do the second midfielder job well.
An academy understudy to Bruno in a more busy fixture schedule would probably be more ideal than a 60M signing of a talented player that can't displace Bruno.
Even before the injury, there was nowhere for him in the team. Decent player but an absolutely braindead signing, especially at that price.
I’d imagine a lot of our fans did not rate him prior to signing for us, like myself. It would be incredibly fickle to suddenly rate a footballer just because he’s transferred to the club. It’s up to Mount to change divisive opinions; and frankly, it’s not looking good so far.
Why on Earth would you do that? Are they not part of the game now?
It would be incredibly fickle to "suddenly rate" a footballer because you've bought him, absolutely.
There's a grand canyon sized difference between that and wanting him to flop in order to say "I told you so".
To make him look worse.
What’s his injury anyway? I read somewhere it’s a calf injury. Transfermarkt has it as unknown.
You should try to fit an additional 'M' in the title for every new month that starts and he is not fit
I'm still going with the one dude in this thread who said it was something more but couldn't elaborate
Ah that ITK claim. Read his post and closed the thread immediately. Didn’t bother coming in for the next few days. Hopefully that guy was just bullshitting though!I'm still going with the one dude in this thread who said it was something more but couldn't elaborate
Textbook confirmation bias.
Done
Well. No. Because that is a singular stat defaulter to a specific person. IE: If he takes all the corners, he’s naturally going to have his assist stat inflated relative to his teammates. Furthermore, if he has competent people on the end (Rudiger, etc), they additionally contribute to the inflation by virtue of scoring above the expected amount.
Quite a lot of people here thought he’d be injured.
You can't move him on after one season, a season where he's been unfortunate with a number of setbacks.
Still hopeful he'll be a good signing for us.
Still hopeful he'll be a good signing for us.
When is he back?
I would love to see Mount given an opportunity in Bruno’s position. I wonder if it was him playing vs Wolves he’d play Hojlund through on those 2-3 occasions instead of passing wide.
I remember at Chelsea 2 or so years ago he was a very controlled and systematic player which would have suited the way we played on Thursday.
I remember at Chelsea 2 or so years ago he was a very controlled and systematic player which would have suited the way we played on Thursday.
who cares. Donny Mk2
You might be right mate. Thing is Bruno is never dropped or injured.