Based on Santos and Tielemans, predict Utds third midfield signing

Bondi77 said:
I am not saying that it lessens the need I am saying that the budget does not now allow it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But given how we've managed sales, I'm not sure they were counting on recouping 45m for Ugarte. At the moment the only rumours around Zirkzee are a loan to Juve with an option (which is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless), but Ugarte is on a 150K which is likely quite a bit more than Zirkzee, so tricky to shift.

I think there's the ability to spend, but not all up front. And they are banking on future successes, which I think is a relatively safe bet if it just means CL qualification and better sponsorships. And obviously, not having a huge drop between the first XI and the rest of the squad makes CL qualification all the more realistic, as well as a deeper run in all cup competition (incl. the CL).

My assumption is they are being quite meticulous and eventually we will see a left back and another midfielder signed before the end of the window.
 
Bastian said:
Perhaps. But given how we've managed sales, I'm not sure they were counting on recouping 45m for Ugarte. At the moment the only rumours around Zirkzee are a loan to Juve with an option (which is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless), but Ugarte is on a 150K which is likely quite a bit more than Zirkzee, so tricky to shift.

I think there's the ability to spend, but not all up front. And they are banking on future successes, which I think is a relatively safe bet if it just means CL qualification and better sponsorships. And obviously, not having a huge drop between the first XI and the rest of the squad makes CL qualification all the more realistic, as well as a deeper run in all cup competition (incl. the CL).

My assumption is they are being quite meticulous and eventually we will see a left back and another midfielder signed before the end of the window.
Click to expand...
If we were being meticulous we would have had our targets in by now.
If we are waiting until the end of the window then we are trying to get a drop in price and seeing what is available.
 
Bondi77 said:
If we were being meticulous we would have had our targets in by now.
If we are waiting until the end of the window then we are trying to get a drop in price and seeing what is available.
Click to expand...

I think we may have underestimated how difficult it was going to be to move players on, certainly we could not have predicted how crazy the market was going to become, there are so many variables, the World Cup, etc. This is not meant as an excuse for the hierarchy, just context. Let’s see where we’re at at the end of the month. I’m certainly more optimistic than most on here, which is unusual for me.
 
Bastian said:
I think we may have underestimated how difficult it was going to be to move players on, certainly we could not have predicted how crazy the market was going to become, there are so many variables, the World Cup, etc. This is not meant as an excuse for the hierarchy, just context. Let’s see where we’re at at the end of the month. I’m certainly more optimistic than most on here, which is unusual for me.
Click to expand...
Which players?
Ugarte is injured and Stevie Wonder could see that once Barca did not want Rashford it was going to be impossible to move him on given his wages and his statement he would only move to a top club.
 
I’m going for and hoping for Berge based on what’s currently available right now. He maintains the ball playing standards we’ve set in midfield this window while adding height and defensive quality
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
I’m going for and hoping for Berge based on what’s currently available right now. He maintains the ball playing standards we’ve set in midfield this window while adding height and defensive quality
Click to expand...
I'm kinda getting to the point where it seems like if we truly wanted him, we would have got him by now but clearly the recruitment team is not impressed.

Makes me wonder why though. He's better than ederson but for a similar price.
 
zenith said:
I'm kinda getting to the point where it seems like if we truly wanted him, we would have got him by now but clearly the recruitment team is not impressed.

Makes me wonder why though. He's better than ederson but for a similar price.
Click to expand...
That’s a strong possibility. I also wonder if the lack of midfield activity is because we are waiting to see what happens with Rodri and how that impacts Tchouameni who’s been said to be “the dream signing”
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
That’s a strong possibility. I also wonder if the lack of midfield activity is because we are waiting to see what happens with Rodri and how that impacts Tchouameni who’s been said to be “the dream signing”
Click to expand...
That ship has sailed with rodri likely off to barca now, do Tchou going nowhere
 
jamesjimmybyrondean said:
I’m going for and hoping for Berge based on what’s currently available right now. He maintains the ball playing standards we’ve set in midfield this window while adding height and defensive quality
Click to expand...
He's 28 so would be another older midfield signing like Tielemans. But I get what you're saying, it may be either Berge or o signing at this point.
 
Whether Mainoo, Teilemans and Santos stay fit and rotate well will determine whether any gamble not signing a third midfielder this summer will pay off.
There's no doubt these three are quality. What worries me is when opposition run at our defence. We need a proper defensive midfielder in there to complement them. We cant play a higher line with Maguire in defence which will limit us to concede possession and sit back when leading. The number of 1 nil margin victories every season is a testament to that.
 
Reddevildans said:
mine whether any gamble not signing a third midfielder this summer will pay off.
There's no doubt these three are quality. What worries me is when opposition run at our defence. We need a proper defensive midfielder in there to complement them. We cant play a higher line with Maguire in defence which will limit us to concede possession and sit back when leading. T
Click to expand...
It's stupid to gamble but seems like club will do it and ruin our season. I'd understand gambling if it was last season where we played 40 games in whole season. Now with Europe and more cups games (you wouldn't expect us to get knocked out at very first step in both domestic cups) it's stupid and irresponsible.
 
I hope the people who were counting Mount as the 4th midfielder have seen the light now. Good footballer, but cant trust the bloke to stay fit.

We still need another midfielder, another #6 to compete with Santos.
 
Highfather_24 said:
I hope the people who were counting Mount as the 4th midfielder have seen the light now. Good footballer, but cant trust the bloke to stay fit.

We still need another midfielder, another #6 to compete with Santos.
Click to expand...
How long is he out for?
 
Bondi77 said:
How long is he out for?
Click to expand...
doesn't matter. he shouldn't be considered as our no.4 CM as he can be out injured anytime. He's a great bonus / squad option if he stays fit, but we need to sign another midfielder.
 
Highfather_24 said:
I hope the people who were counting Mount as the 4th midfielder have seen the light now. Good footballer, but cant trust the bloke to stay fit.

We still need another midfielder, another #6 to compete with Santos.
Click to expand...
I’d probably argue and say we should go for another 8 to compete with tielemans. But that depends on what we’re classing Mainoo as? Some people were saying Carrick was moulding him into a 6 at the end of last season but we had him playing with Casemiro and we know Casemiro liked to get forward also.
 
If we are going to play a 2 man midfield, do we need someone else when we have Mainoo, Tielemans and Santos to fill those spots ?

And which two out of those three are likely first choice starters ?
 
Another midfielder has to be someone who likes sitting on the bench a lot as Santos and Teiemans look class. Id prefer a back up centre forward and a LFB though you could argue Rashford adds to the striking options and Dorgue can play LFB.
 
SteveCoppellFan said:
If we are going to play a 2 man midfield, do we need someone else when we have Mainoo, Tielemans and Santos to fill those spots ?

And which two out of those three are likely first choice starters ?
Click to expand...
Yes because we have many competitions now. None of them are athletic, which might be a problem at some point.

At the moment I think Santos is first choice.
 
Hammondo said:
Yes because we have many competitions now. None of them are athletic, which might be a problem at some point.

At the moment I think Santos is first choice.
Click to expand...
Yeah we will get bullied when facing a physical midfield if we don't have that profile in the squad
 
He's a bit injury prone but what would you guys think about Denis Zakaria? As a rotational member, when we need a more physical DM. I think he is class but maybe too risky.
 
aeh1991 said:
He's a bit injury prone but what would you guys think about Denis Zakaria? As a rotational member, when we need a more physical DM. I think he is class but maybe too risky.
Click to expand...
Didn't he really struggle at Chelsea?
 
Zumbi said:
But in doing so they ran Rice into the ground, which doesn’t seem particularly sustainable, hence them buying Guimarães this summer. I suspect they’ll now rotate a bit more this season, which may well be why they want to keep MLS as well.

For us, I also think it makes more sense to rotate our starting pair between league, CL and cup games, with the exact combination changing depending on the type of game. Certain combinations will make more sense for different opponents.

As for the fourth midfielder only being used rarely, that doesn’t really stack up. Sure, it applied to Arsenal and Chelsea last season - for Arsenal because Arteta didn't trust Norgaard and for Chelsea because Lavia is always out injured (although James featured in midfield quite a bit).

But for the other teams you listed the number of appearances were fairly spread out - as you’d expect with injuries, rotation, sub anppearances etc. I’ve added their league appearances from last season below:

City - Rodri (21), Bernardo Silva (38), Nico (25), Reijnders (28)

Liverpool - Gravenberch (36) Mac Allister (37) Szoboszlai (36), Jones (34)

Villa - Kamara (18), Tielemans (25), Onana (25), Barkley (21)
(You also missed McGinn who had 30 appearances)
Click to expand...

I think appearances alone make the rotation look far more evenly spread than it actually was, because they include late substitute appearances and players covering different positions. I think starts and minutes are a much better comparison.

Liverpool are probably the clearest example. Jones made 34 league appearances, but he only started 18 (6 at right back) games and played around 1,900 league minutes. Compare that to Gravenberch, Mac Allister and Szoboszlai (played a lot at right back and attacking mid) , who were all close to or around the 3,000-minute mark. So despite making plenty of appearances, Jones was still very much the fourth-choice midfielder.

The same applies at Villa. Barkley made 21 appearances, but only started 7 league games and played roughly half the minutes of Tielemans and Onana. McGinn is relevant to Villa's squad, but he often played further forward or from a wider position, so I wouldn't class him as one of their main central midfield options in the same way.

Enzo started 35 league games and Caicedo 32, compared to Santos' 13 and Lavia's 4. Santos' 27 appearances sound a lot until you realise 14 were off the bench. There was clearly a first-choice pair.

As for Arsenal, running Rice into the ground was Arteta's choice. He had other options but clearly didn't trust them enough to rotate him. That's on him. And yes, that's probably why they've bought Bruno G, but they've effectively upgraded Norgaard. They now have Rice, Bruno, Zubimendi and Merino, plus MLS, who barely played last season. Merino was also used a lot up front before his injury.

As for City, I don't think they're the best example because Rodri's season was heavily disrupted by injury. That naturally forced others into the team, so it's difficult to use those numbers as evidence of their preferred rotation.

I'm not saying the fourth midfielder never plays. Injuries, suspensions, cup games and substitute appearances mean they'll always get minutes. My point is simply that most top teams still have a fairly clear pecking order, with one midfielder generally receiving noticeably fewer starts and minutes than the main three.

I also agree that different midfield combinations suit different opponents. But even then, once a manager settles on his strongest partnership, someone is inevitably going to play less. That's just how most top squads are built.

So going back to my original point, I wouldn't be surprised if we go with Mainoo, Tielemans and Santos as our main three, with two backs (Mount and other).
 
Walters_19_MuFc said:
I think appearances alone make the rotation look far more evenly spread than it actually was, because they include late substitute appearances and players covering different positions. I think starts and minutes are a much better comparison.

Liverpool are probably the clearest example. Jones made 34 league appearances, but he only started 18 (6 at right back) games and played around 1,900 league minutes. Compare that to Gravenberch, Mac Allister and Szoboszlai (played a lot at right back and attacking mid) , who were all close to or around the 3,000-minute mark. So despite making plenty of appearances, Jones was still very much the fourth-choice midfielder.

The same applies at Villa. Barkley made 21 appearances, but only started 7 league games and played roughly half the minutes of Tielemans and Onana. McGinn is relevant to Villa's squad, but he often played further forward or from a wider position, so I wouldn't class him as one of their main central midfield options in the same way.

Enzo started 35 league games and Caicedo 32, compared to Santos' 13 and Lavia's 4. Santos' 27 appearances sound a lot until you realise 14 were off the bench. There was clearly a first-choice pair.

As for Arsenal, running Rice into the ground was Arteta's choice. He had other options but clearly didn't trust them enough to rotate him. That's on him. And yes, that's probably why they've bought Bruno G, but they've effectively upgraded Norgaard. They now have Rice, Bruno, Zubimendi and Merino, plus MLS, who barely played last season. Merino was also used a lot up front before his injury.

As for City, I don't think they're the best example because Rodri's season was heavily disrupted by injury. That naturally forced others into the team, so it's difficult to use those numbers as evidence of their preferred rotation.

I'm not saying the fourth midfielder never plays. Injuries, suspensions, cup games and substitute appearances mean they'll always get minutes. My point is simply that most top teams still have a fairly clear pecking order, with one midfielder generally receiving noticeably fewer starts and minutes than the main three.

I also agree that different midfield combinations suit different opponents. But even then, once a manager settles on his strongest partnership, someone is inevitably going to play less. That's just how most top squads are built.

So going back to my original point, I wouldn't be surprised if we go with Mainoo, Tielemans and Santos as our main three, with two backs (Mount and other).
Click to expand...

You seem to be changing the goal posts a little bit here. Your original claim which I took issue with was that it's "very rare for the fourth choice to be used often", not that it was rare for them to start. If someone like Jones is, in your words, making "plenty of appearances" even as a sub, then it's not rare for them to be used. When competing on four fronts subs are incredibly important, and it was something we were starkly lacking last season - it was noticeable even in a light season that we just didn't have the quality available off the bench. There were plenty of games where Case and Mainoo looked like they could be replaced with fresh legs towards the ends of games, but Carrick barely had any options, and didn't trust the few he had. The whole point of bringing in a third new CM is to have that depth so we are better placed to maintain some level of quality on the pitch despite a heavier schedule. And nothing from Mount's time with us suggests he can be trusted to be available as that person, which is why he should just be a bonus squad player, not primary cover for a key position. Similar with the Fletchers - I don't think they've displayed the requisite quality to be that fourth CM, hence us looking to bring one in.

Using injuries as a get out doesn't make sense either, because injuries happen. That's one of the reasons it's so important to have strength in depth.
 
Zumbi said:
You seem to be changing the goal posts a little bit here. Your original claim which I took issue with was that it's "very rare for the fourth choice to be used often", not that it was rare for them to start. If someone like Jones is, in your words, making "plenty of appearances" even as a sub, then it's not rare for them to be used. When competing on four fronts subs are incredibly important, and it was something we were starkly lacking last season - it was noticeable even in a light season that we just didn't have the quality available off the bench. There were plenty of games where Case and Mainoo looked like they could be replaced with fresh legs towards the ends of games, but Carrick barely had any options, and didn't trust the few he had. The whole point of bringing in a third new CM is to have that depth so we are better placed to maintain some level of quality on the pitch despite a heavier schedule. And nothing from Mount's time with us suggests he can be trusted to be available as that person, which is why he should just be a bonus squad player, not primary cover for a key position. Similar with the Fletchers - I don't think they've displayed the requisite quality to be that fourth CM, hence us looking to bring one in.

Using injuries as a get out doesn't make sense either, because injuries happen. That's one of the reasons it's so important to have strength in depth.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'm moving the goalposts. My original point was that most teams have three main midfielders sharing the majority of the minutes, with a fourth providing depth. When I said the fourth option isn't used that often, I obviously wasn't suggesting they literally never come off the bench. There's a pretty big difference between making 25-30 appearances and actually playing a significant share of the minutes.

On Jones, had Szoboszlai not been played at right back for a lot of the time, those minutes Jones had would have been given to him.

And I don't think injuries are a "get out" at all. Of course injuries happen - that's literally why you have a fourth midfielder and versatile squad players. My argument isn't that we should only have three midfielders. I'm saying that for two positions, three strong options + a reliable fourth option + players who can fill in is perfectly normal squad construction.

I'm completely in favour of strength in depth. I just don't think strength in depth means stockpiling players. At some point you have to actually give the players you've bought enough minutes to justify having them.
 
Get a decent 4th option in or a top talent we can build up. But we need a player no problem
 
Walters_19_MuFc said:
I don't think I'm moving the goalposts. My original point was that most teams have three main midfielders sharing the majority of the minutes, with a fourth providing depth. When I said the fourth option isn't used that often, I obviously wasn't suggesting they literally never come off the bench. There's a pretty big difference between making 25-30 appearances and actually playing a significant share of the minutes.

On Jones, had Szoboszlai not been played at right back for a lot of the time, those minutes Jones had would have been given to him.

And I don't think injuries are a "get out" at all. Of course injuries happen - that's literally why you have a fourth midfielder and versatile squad players. My argument isn't that we should only have three midfielders. I'm saying that for two positions, three strong options + a reliable fourth option + players who can fill in is perfectly normal squad construction.

I'm completely in favour of strength in depth. I just don't think strength in depth means stockpiling players. At some point you have to actually give the players you've bought enough minutes to justify having them.
Click to expand...

That was my original point though! That Mount isn't a reliable fourth option which is why we still need to bring one in. As a reminder, the crux of your original post which I responded to was:

Walters_19_MuFc said:
With that in mind, it wouldn't be surprising at all if we went into the season with Mainoo, Santos, Tielemans and Mount as our four main midfielders, alongside a versatile player who can cover multiple roles when needed.
Click to expand...

I responded and said that would be disappointing precisely because Mount can't be relied upon, at which point you said fourth midfielders are rarely used anyway. I disagree with that and think they're used often enough that relying on Mount there is too big a risk. Now you're saying the fourth option should be reliable, which is the one thing you certainly can't accuse Mount of being.

Last season we played our lightest schedule in over a hundred years and at times still didn't have enough depth at CM to make changes when needed. We haven't yet actually increased our depth despite facing a much heavier schedule, we've only increased our quality. Adding depth is still essential if we really want to compete on four fronts.
 
I think Myles Lewis Skelly would be a great squad option. Maybe a possibility now thay the signed Bruno G
 
Reddevildans said:
Whether Mainoo, Teilemans and Santos stay fit and rotate well will determine whether any gamble not signing a third midfielder this summer will pay off.
There's no doubt these three are quality. What worries me is when opposition run at our defence. We need a proper defensive midfielder in there to complement them. We cant play a higher line with Maguire in defence which will limit us to concede possession and sit back when leading. The number of 1 nil margin victories every season is a testament to that.
Click to expand...
Santos is a proper defensive midfielder. Or how do you see him?
 
JohnyBuckets said:
I think Myles Lewis Skelly would be a great squad option. Maybe a possibility now thay the signed Bruno G
Click to expand...
Unless he was to feel very impatient and make his views clear they'd want a huge fee I think. They seem very keen on him, even if they don't think he's ready to be first choice.
 
Rainy nights in Stoke said:
Santos is a proper defensive midfielder. Or how do you see him?
Click to expand...
Im not convinced. And not very experienced at that. Taking a huge risk into this season if we are relying on him. He's ready to play in the first team though but I see him comparable to Mainoo than to someone like Caicedo who is more of textbook defensive midfielder.
 
Reddevildans said:
Im not convinced. And not very experienced at that. Taking a huge risk into this season if we are relying on him. He's ready to play in the first team though but I see him comparable to Mainoo than to someone like Caicedo who is more of textbook defensive midfielder.
Click to expand...
Carrick isn't looking for a textbook defensive midfielder. He wants two rounded 6/8's who are smart positionally and good on the ball while being able to hold their own defensively - we have that with all 3 of our current guys
 
bosnian_red said:
Carrick isn't looking for a textbook defensive midfielder. He wants two rounded 6/8's who are smart positionally and good on the ball while being able to hold their own defensively - we have that with all 3 of our current guys
Click to expand...
So we’re looking at yet another year where we’ll get sliced through easier than the softest of butter
 
matherto said:
So we’re looking at yet another year where we’ll get sliced through easier than the softest of butter
Click to expand...
Just like last season since Carrick took over? Oh wait... You've been gaslit by a couple of garbage managers who didn't know how to coach and had suicidal instructions which meant the only way they could even hope to work was with someone like Kante in the middle. Lots of ways to play football. You don't need super athletic midfielders. Intelligence, positioning and passing/control is far more important than any pace in there, which has never really been that important in midfield.
croadyman said:
Could still sign an athletic DM to prevent that
Click to expand...
Carricks not looking for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.