Donkai Havertz | Arsenal Watch

[ThierryHenry]

Holy shit I forgot about that. I think what we've seen so far from Havertz is worse than anything I saw of him at Chelsea the last 3 years. It's still only a couple of games, so I think it's fair to give him more time to adjust to playing in midfield again. It's been years since he last played there.

This is what gives me some hope. He's having to learn a new position with a new team, while his confidence is clearly on the absolute floor. If the latter can pick up while he gets used to the role... that's the route to improvement. Though I still think it's unlikely that he works out.

Yes, that's why I was surprised we did not get a replacement for Partey now, knowing that he has been unreliable. Instead we spent on a luxury in Havertz. It was a strange transfer window.

Rice is the replacement for Partey. He's started every game in Partey's position from last season.

 

[Zehner]

I'll give it to you, you're relentless.

I guess the irony of the bolded eludes you.

You should really leave your confirmation bubble for once if you think the level of criticism here is proportionate to his performance.

I didn't watch the whole game but from what I saw he was noticeable in three moments and other than that was completely anonymous. The three moments were the horrible miss, the intercepted pass that led to a goal and a dive. If that doesn't constitute to a bad performance then I don't know what will. You are very generous with your rating here.

No offense but that's exactly what I mean. People only look at highlights and/or big moments and then judge a player's performance on that basis. You can't judge a midfielder's performance based on goal scoring scenes when 99% of his job consists of doing the simple things right. He was good at retaining possession under pressure and pressuring the opponent himself. He lacked attacking impact and gifted United a counter opportunity. That's not particularly good but certainly not as bad as you'd think by only reading this thread.

I was at the ground, and I can't remember the last time I saw a player hide from the ball more than Havertz did in the first half. Constantly moving to make sure he was marked out of the game and couldn't be passed to. When he did get it, he panicked to get rid of it as quickly as he could, hence the very lazy pass that lead to the first United goal. The second half was somwhat better, with the highlight being the run for the penalty that was overturned for VAR.

That we dominated the game with that gap in the midfield was testament to the rest of the team. It's also now two games in a row where the team has dramatically improved as soon as he's been taken off.

Ödegaard 51 touches in 89 minutes (0.57 touches per minute), Havertz had 34 in 77 (0.44 per minute). I mean, I believe that he's not as involved as intended but don't you think "I can't remember the last time I saw a player hide from the ball more than Havertz" is a bit of a hypoerbole? Also, I don't think he packed when he got it but was generally quite composed that one turnover aside. He passed it on quickly but that is generally what I want to see from a midfielder. Maybe that's the difference, I like players who let the ball circulate instead of trying to force it impatiently.

 

[Chief123]

I am but each weekend, there 39 games in the top 4 leagues so I think we'll agree it is hard to watch them all And as I said, my "judgment" is actually based on games I watched. I saw players have tremendous games (e. g. Thiago in the UCL final against Paris) and then read how people said he's only easy on the eye and has no end product. Most football fans simply have no idea what they're talking about and stats provide an incomplete but at least objective picture.

The irony of your post is you were trying to convince the Caf last year that Sancho is quicker than Salah and Mane based on some “stats” you pulled up.

 

[ThierryHenry]

So there's finally a compilation of all the plays he was involved in:

Spoiler

That's by no means a "poor" or even "terrible" performance. Nothing special or particularly good either but solid, especially when you consider that it was his fourth game or so. He keeps things simple, retains possession well and works against the ball. Many takes in this thread are over the top.

Ödegaard 51 touches in 89 minutes (0.57 touches per minute), Havertz had 34 in 77 (0.44 per minute). I mean, I believe that he's not as involved as intended but don't you think "I can't remember the last time I saw a player hide from the ball more than Havertz" is a bit of a hypoerbole? Also, I don't think he packed when he got it but was generally quite composed that one turnover aside. He passed it on quickly but that is generally what I want to see from a midfielder. Maybe that's the difference, I like players who let the ball circulate instead of trying to force it impatiently.

I watched your video of his touches to make sure. I don't understand your posts on it - that's clearly a very poor performance. An easy chance missed due to poor technique, a very lazy pass that loses the ball in a dangerous area, leading to a goal, a couple of clumsy fouls, and very little else. There's an ok pass to Martinelli at the start of the game, and good movement a couple of the times at the start of the second half, leading to the disallowed penalty and a Nketiah chance, but otherwise, he's making no impact. Through the game he almost never receives the ball in areas you want him to - in the box, in space, in-between the lines. That was a factor of him hiding from the ball, as I saw with my own eyes.

 

[fck]

No offense but that's exactly what I mean. People only look at highlights and/or big moments and then judge a player's performance on that basis. You can't judge a midfielder's performance based on goal scoring scenes when 99% of his job consists of doing the simple things right. He was good at retaining possession under pressure and pressuring the opponent himself. He lacked attacking impact and gifted United a counter opportunity. That's not particularly good but certainly not as bad as you'd think by only reading this thread.

I played football myself for many years as a midfielder so I know that football is more than highlights. I just disagree that this was a 'solid' performance. It was not a car crash of a performance but it was like 3/10 maybe 4/10. I bet Havertz himself would agree with that assessment.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

I didn't watch the whole game but from what I saw he was noticeable in three moments and other than that was completely anonymous. The three moments were the horrible miss, the intercepted pass that led to a goal and a dive. If that doesn't constitute to a bad performance then I don't know what will. You are very generous with your rating here.

It's because he's decided this is a hill to die on, but what makes it most amusing is that it's a hill of his own creation.

I was at the ground, and I can't remember the last time I saw a player hide from the ball more than Havertz did in the first half. Constantly moving to make sure he was marked out of the game and couldn't be passed to. When he did get it, he panicked to get rid of it as quickly as he could, hence the very lazy pass that lead to the first United goal. The second half was somwhat better, with the highlight being the run for the penalty that was overturned for VAR.

That we dominated the game with that gap in the midfield was testament to the rest of the team. It's also now two games in a row where the team has dramatically improved as soon as he's been taken off.

I don't think you really dominated the game, though on the balance of things you slightly shaded it and probably narrowly deserved the win, but what you also have to take into consideration is that while you were playing with a passenger in the team, so were we with Martial. It was very much a 10v10 kind of effort (and you could notably tell how drastic the change was when both those players were replaced later in the game).

 

[Mogget]

It's because he's decided this is a hill to die on, but what makes it most amusing is that it's a hill of his own creation.

I don't think you really dominated the game, though on the balance of things you slightly shaded it and probably narrowly deserved the win, but what you also have to take into consideration is that while you were playing with a passenger in the team, so were we with Martial. It was very much a 10v10 kind of effort (and you could notably tell how drastic the change was when both those players were replaced later in the game).

Slightly off topic but this must surely be the highest praise I've ever seen you give Arsenal

 

[Changeisgood]

This is what gives me some hope. He's having to learn a new position with a new team, while his confidence is clearly on the absolute floor. If the latter can pick up while he gets used to the role... that's the route to improvement. Though I still think it's unlikely that he works out.

Rice is the replacement for Partey. He's started every game in Partey's position from last season.

Yes, he seems to to be more at home there but Partey is still here and Xhaka is not. Now we are trying to fit Partey in at RB and shifting things around in a weird way. It is clear that Partey is still in Arteta's plans. The lineup vs Man Utd at least made more sense, but I think that happened because Partey was unavailable. I am curious how we would line up vs City...with Partey and Rice in as a double pivot? Is that the idea here?

I don't know why we let Xhaka, a strong proven performer in his last season go for a third of the price for a gamble at 65 mil. I will never get that one. Like I said, it may turn out well but it looks a very strange decision until that happens. Still holding out hope it will happen!

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Slightly off topic but this must surely be the highest praise I've ever seen you give Arsenal

I mean it's obviously not (and I actually said this straight after the game), but whatever makes you happy.

 

[MackRobinson]

So there's finally a compilation of all the plays he was involved in:

Spoiler

That's by no means a "poor" or even "terrible" performance. Nothing special or particularly good either but solid, especially when you consider that it was his fourth game or so. He keeps things simple, retains possession well and works against the ball. Many takes in this thread are over the top.

How can you call a performance solid where a player missed a sitter and misplaced the pass that led to the goal? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[Changeisgood]

This Man Utd edition is not adventurous enough, especially vs the top 6 teams away. I saw the same thing from Arteta's early teams as well. The goal is to keep things compact and catch a break here and there. The possession stat on its own is a little misleading because so much of the game was played in the Man Utd half. Even when Man Utd had the ball they were slow.even lethargic to push forward and were generally happy to tick it around in their own half.

It got better when Hojlund came on. The team seemed to crave that kind of player so we will have to see how he changes things up, but I would have to say for 70+ min there was a serious lack of ambition.

 

[Zehner]

The irony of your post is you were trying to convince the Caf last year that Sancho is quicker than Salah and Mane based on some “stats” you pulled up.

Sancho did reach a higher top speed in that season's UCL than Salah and Mané. That's a fact unless you want to question the accuracy of their measuring technology. I know you have quite a special realtionship with facts but it is what it is. Maybe you should accept that the human eye can be tricked and some players may seem faster to you than others.

I watched your video of his touches to make sure. I don't understand your posts on it - that's clearly a very poor performance. An easy chance missed due to poor technique, a very lazy pass that loses the ball in a dangerous area, leading to a goal, a couple of clumsy fouls, and very little else. There's an ok pass to Martinelli at the start of the game, and good movement a couple of the times at the start of the second half, leading to the disallowed penalty and a Nketiah chance, but otherwise, he's making no impact. Through the game he almost never receives the ball in areas you want him to - in the box, in space, in-between the lines. That was a factor of him hiding from the ball, as I saw with my own eyes.

I think we weight the different types of plays differently. For me, doing the simple things right is what has the highest priority, at least as long as the team functions in general. Getting into goal scoring positions, chance creation, etc. comes on top of that. Better basics without that than the other way around. I know that many fans, especially in England as it seems to me, see that a bit differently.

I played football myself for many years as a midfielder so I know that football is more than highlights. I just disagree that this was a 'solid' performance. It was not a car crash of a performance but it was like 3/10 maybe 4/10. I bet Havertz himself would agree with that assessment.

I think we aren't that far off. On a scale from 1 to 10, I'd give him something between 4 and 6. But reading the reactions in this thread, you expect something between 1 and 3.

 

[Zehner]

How can you call a performance solid where a player missed a sitter and misplaced the pass that led to the goal? I'm genuinely confused.

The chance had a goal probability of less than 35%. A misplaced pass in the opponent half happens even in the best teams. This is result oriented thinking. He had 34 touches plus the off the ball stuff, I think reducing that to two situations when he solved the rest of them solidly isn't a wholistic perspective.

 

[ThierryHenry]

It's because he's decided this is a hill to die on, but what makes it most amusing is that it's a hill of his own creation.

I don't think you really dominated the game, though on the balance of things you slightly shaded it and probably narrowly deserved the win, but what you also have to take into consideration is that while you were playing with a passenger in the team, so were we with Martial. It was very much a 10v10 kind of effort (and you could notably tell how drastic the change was when both those players were replaced later in the game).

I would say we dominated the game, but you were very threatening on the counter, and as a result, could have (and very nearly did!) win it.

How can you call a performance solid where a player missed a sitter and misplaced the pass that led to the goal? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Yes, he seems to to be more at home there but Partey is still here and Xhaka is not. Now we are trying to fit Partey in at RB and shifting things around in a weird way. It is clear that Partey is still in Arteta's plans. The lineup vs Man Utd at least made more sense, but I think that happened because Partey was unavailable. I am curious how we would line up vs City...with Partey and Rice in as a double pivot? Is that the idea here?

I don't know why we let Xhaka, a strong proven performer in his last season go for a third of the price for a gamble at 65 mil. I will never get that one. Like I said, it may turn out well but it looks a very strange decision until that happens. Still holding out hope it will happen!

Remember we have played City this season! In that game, Partey and Rice played together. I expect that will be the plan, while one of Partey or Zinchenko will also start each game as an inverted full-back to help win the midfield battle.

 

[ThierryHenry]

I think we weight the different types of plays differently. For me, doing the simple things right is what has the highest priority, at least as long as the team functions in general. Getting into goal scoring positions, chance creation, etc. comes on top of that. Better basics without that than the other way around. I know that many fans, especially in England as it seems to me, see that a bit differently.

The basics are passing and moving into space to help his team-mates progress the ball and create dangerous attacks. He did next to none of that, which is my main criticism. I'm not really sure why I'm still arguing this, I'll leave it here.

 

[MackRobinson]

The chance had a goal probability of less than 35%. A misplaced pass in the opponent half happens even in the best teams. This is result oriented thinking. He had 34 touches plus the off the ball stuff, I think reducing that to two situations when he solved the rest of them solidly isn't a wholistic perspective.

I'm not saying judge him only by those situations. I just don't understand how given those situations his overall play can be deemed "solid".

For the sake of context, he didn't just misplace any pass in the opponent's half, he misplaced a pass that led to a transition opportunity. Even if Rashford doesn't score, that's a glaring mistake.

 

[Chief123]

Sancho did reach a higher top speed in that season's UCL than Salah and Mané. That's a fact unless you want to question the accuracy of their measuring technology. I know you have quite a special realtionship with facts but it is what it is. Maybe you should accept that the human eye can be tricked and some players may seem faster to you than others.

You prove the point again. You are still convinced Sancho is quicker than Salah/Mane when anyone who watches football can see that’s absurd. Stop watching football by stats. You’ve picked stats from a competition with limited games and a small sample.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

This Man Utd edition is not adventurous enough, especially vs the top 6 teams away. I saw the same thing from Arteta's early teams as well. The goal is to keep things compact and catch a break here and there. The possession stat on its own is a little misleading because so much of the game was played in the Man Utd half. Even when Man Utd had the ball they were slow.even lethargic to push forward and were generally happy to tick it around in their own half.

I think this is key - Hojlund, Mount, our first choice defence, maybe to an extent Amrabat, change the dynamic of the team drastically (especially Hojlund). I believe so far what we've seen is solid tactics, but poor technical execution in key moments, which will be reinforced, and therefore improve the overall performances, with the top available personnel.

The basics are passing and moving into space to help his team-mates progress the ball and create dangerous attacks. He did next to none of that, which is my main criticism. I'm not really sure why I'm still arguing this, I'll leave it here.

He's now trying to build this as a sort of "we don't value the same things in a player" and weirdly trying to construct it as a UK vs others topic.

I think what people who have eyes and watched the game value is a player not being crap. But Zehner has different standards, you see.

 

[Zehner]

I'm not saying judge him only by those situations. I just don't understand how given those situations his overall play can be deemed "solid".

For the sake of context, he didn't just misplace any pass in the opponent's half, he misplaced a pass that led to a transition opportunity. Even if Rashford doesn't score, that's a glaring mistake.

Yes, it definitely was a bad mistake. But those mistakes happen in almost every game. See, I'm by no means arguing he had a bad game. As said, solid to me is somewhere between a 4 and a 6. Average at best but not the trainwreck I expected when I read the first opinion pieces in here.

You prove the point again. You are still convinced Sancho is quicker than Salah/Mane when anyone who watches football can see that’s absurd. Stop watching football by stats. You’ve picked stats from a competition with limited games and a small sample.

See, that's where we differ. I know that humans can't "see" how fast somebody is. We can roughly estimate but our perception is completely skewed. In this case, e. g. by running style and so forth. Which is why numbers have been invented: They enable us to compare certain things objectively. Football is often quite a subjective topic but when you find yourself arguing against the few objective facts which are there (and top speed that's been clocked through modern technology is almost as objective as it gets in this sport) then it is time to reconsider. You can argue that top speed isn't that important, you can argue that Sancho may be fast but uses it badly, you can argue he lacks match fitness so he can't maintain that pace but what you can't argue is that Sancho hasn't achieved a higher top speed in that respective UCL season than Salah and Mané.

 

[Zehner]

He's now trying to build this as a sort of "we don't value the same things in a player" and weirdly trying to construct it as a UK vs others topic.

I think what people who have eyes and watched the game value is a player not being crap. But Zehner has different standards, you see.

If you actually read my post in the various topics in which we clashed, you'd actually realize that this is a constant. I do value other things in a player. But that would actually require that you try to understand what the other poster wants to say instead of taking everything personal like a butthurt primadonna.

 

[GoonerBear]

I'm going to contradict what I said yesterday slightly here when I compared Havertz to Vieira's impact, and sort of agree with @Zehner.

For me anyway, looking at Xhaka's change of role last season, I didn't expect Havertz to be heavily involved in the build up. Arsenal use Zinckenko, Rice/Partey and Odegaard for that.

While I want him to be neat and tidy when on the ball, and off the ball he has to do his defensive shift, the main use I see of Havertz is to ghost in and be on the end of chances in and around the box.

However, in saying that, that means there's no hiding place for him. He can't miss chances like he missed on Sunday, and he can't give away possession like he did for Utds goal. If you're not offering as much in the build up, then you need to do what you are on the pitch for. He should have a couple of goals already this season with the chances presented to him, and then people might perceive him differently. But he hasn't taken them, so people are rightly criticising him.

People will rightly ask does that justify the massive outlay on fee and wages, and would there have been better alternatives for that role. For me, and for most people, they'd say there were better.

 

[WeePat]

Yes I agree though I still feel 4 games is not that much time yet. He hasn't exactly been a liability, at least. If not for Saka's horror pass vs Fulham we might be 12 points from 12. Arteta has subbed him off twice so I'm sure he's wanting more from him. I do think the damage from Chelsea is still very raw and Arteta has a big task on his hands.

This idea that Arsenal are undoing some crazy damage done to him by Chelsea is genuinely hilarious. It arrogantly positions Arteta as some kind of unrivalled talent guru saviour of lost souls.

 

[1905]

Doing "the basics" was the area which Havertz was most frustrating in a Chelsea shirt - for 3 years. Once in 20 matches he'd move and glide like a gazelle but other than that he was generally clumsy/lackadaisical when receiving the ball and passing. No awareness of when he had space or not to turn and progress the ball. And then when he did realise he had time he'd do absolutely nothing with it except take the easy option. Absolutely clueless. He'd then score a header and the fans would use that to try and justify this imaginary fantastic player they've built up in their minds.

People keep trying to pedal the idea that those criticising Havertz are judging his performances on output but that isn't the case. Its what he does for the full 90 minutes that's the problem. I love players that do the basics extremely well, and Havertz just isn't one of them no matter how hard you try to push it or bring up stats. Watching the full 90s tells you everything you need to know.

 

[GoonerBear]

This idea that Arsenal are undoing some crazy damage done to him by Chelsea is genuinely hilarious. It arrogantly positions Arteta as some kind of unrivalled talent guru saviour of lost souls.

It's true that Arteta isn't an unrivalled talent guru saviour of lost souls, but it's hard to deny that bar a good spell under Tuchel, the last few years Chelsea have helped create the lost souls in the first place?

 

[awop]

I don't know why we let Xhaka, a strong proven performer in his last season go for a third of the price for a gamble at 65 mil. I will never get that one. Like I said, it may turn out well but it looks a very strange decision until that happens. Still holding out hope it will happen!

He wanted to go, his wife wanted to go and 80% of his Arsenal career was spent getting shat on by fans of every club and the media. He wanted to leave on a good note and it was probably the perfect timing so we get something in return and thank him for turning it around.
Arteta and Edu did great to convince him to stay one more season last summer. The fact that we identified the wrong player to replace him isn't on him.

 

[WeePat]

It's true that Arteta isn't an unrivalled talent guru saviour of lost souls, but it's hard to deny that bar a good spell under Tuchel, the last few years Chelsea have helped create the lost souls in the first place?

Not necessarily. A few of them, sure. Most clubs have a couple of them. Havertz certainly wasn’t that.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Not necessarily. A few of them, sure. Most clubs have a couple of them. Havertz certainly wasn’t that.

He just needs time to adapt to his new teammates and new tactic. I remember it took Henry and Pires from 2 months to 6 months to adapt to new environment so 4 games is still a bit early to judge. So far sign is not very good.

 

[GoonerGirly]

This idea that Arsenal are undoing some crazy damage done to him by Chelsea is genuinely hilarious. It arrogantly positions Arteta as some kind of unrivalled talent guru saviour of lost souls.

I wouldn't quite put it that dramatically, but I think there is some damage from Chelsea, especially last season. It was a circus there and I'm not sure the club/managers had any clear game plan that the players understood. Completely logical considering they had 3 different managers last season. Think it's more damage regarding his confidence, which IMO is his biggest issue right now. He should have 2 goals for us by now and we'd be having a very different conversation about him. But he's bottled it. He is also playing in midfield again, which he hasn't done since he joined Chelsea, so he's relearning the role.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Doing "the basics" was the area which Havertz was most frustrating in a Chelsea shirt - for 3 years. Once in 20 matches he'd move and glide like a gazelle but other than that he was generally clumsy/lackadaisical when receiving the ball and passing. No awareness of when he had space or not to turn and progress the ball. And then when he did realise he had time he'd do absolutely nothing with it except take the easy option. Absolutely clueless. He'd then score a header and the fans would use that to try and justify this imaginary fantastic player they've built up in their minds.

People keep trying to pedal the idea that those criticising Havertz are judging his performances on output but that isn't the case. Its what he does for the full 90 minutes that's the problem. I love players that do the basics extremely well, and Havertz just isn't one of them no matter how hard you try to push it or bring up stats. Watching the full 90s tells you everything you need to know.

This matches my view.

 

[Blackwidow]

. He is also playing in midfield again, which he hasn't done since he joined Chelsea, so he's relearning the role.

He remember that he played the 9 very successfully in the last year at Leverkusen - and he was scoring more in that position than when he played in a deeper role.

 

[Powderfinger]

Doing "the basics" was the area which Havertz was most frustrating in a Chelsea shirt - for 3 years. Once in 20 matches he'd move and glide like a gazelle but other than that he was generally clumsy/lackadaisical when receiving the ball and passing. No awareness of when he had space or not to turn and progress the ball. And then when he did realise he had time he'd do absolutely nothing with it except take the easy option. Absolutely clueless. He'd then score a header and the fans would use that to try and justify this imaginary fantastic player they've built up in their minds.

People keep trying to pedal the idea that those criticising Havertz are judging his performances on output but that isn't the case. Its what he does for the full 90 minutes that's the problem. I love players that do the basics extremely well, and Havertz just isn't one of them no matter how hard you try to push it or bring up stats. Watching the full 90s tells you everything you need to know.

Or it could be that a fan’s perspective on “the basics” is wildly different than how a manager views the game. You’re focusing on things that might occur once or twice a match. For a manager, the basics are more likely to involve what Havertz is doing without the ball at his feet, all throughout the match.

Havertz has played for four different managers since coming to England, always in teams with very talented squads, and has been regularly selected by each one. I doubt that happens if the player isnt doing “the basics” that really matter to managers.

The irony of this thread is that opposing fans are desperate for him to bust but a player like this will never really be a bust. He may end up a disappointment and viewed as a bad buy, but he is always going to be a hard working, coachable, positionally versatile player who also has unusual physical traits that make him situationally useful for things like beating the press over the top or late game situations when you need to jam the box with good aerial players. Catastrophic injury aside the worst case scenario is that he ends up as a very useful squad player we should have bought for 35-40m but we bought for 65m instead. Players like Pepe, Mudryk, and Sancho are busts or heading in that direction because they truly can't or won't do the basics, to the point that managers can't trust them not to ruin a tactical plan and lose a match. Havertz is the opposite of that.

 

[tenhagsimp]

I was at the ground, and I can't remember the last time I saw a player hide from the ball more than Havertz did in the first half. Constantly moving to make sure he was marked out of the game and couldn't be passed to. When he did get it, he panicked to get rid of it as quickly as he could, hence the very lazy pass that lead to the first United goal. The second half was somwhat better, with the highlight being the run for the penalty that was overturned for VAR.

That we dominated the game with that gap in the midfield was testament to the rest of the team. It's also now two games in a row where the team has dramatically improved as soon as he's been taken off.

This. I was watching the game with my brother who is an Arsenal fan. We literally joke its a 10v10 game with Martial and Havertz acting as statues in the pitch. We barely even remembered both of them getting touches and doing something decent. Hojlund in his little cameo did more than Martial the whole game

 

[WeePat]

Seems like he's becoming more of a role player. Dropped for the last 2 league games. Arsenal did struggle in both games he was dropped for though.

 

[Remember the geese]

Arsenal did struggle in both games he was dropped for though.

In fairness, they've struggled in most games he started in too.

 

[WeePat]

In fairness, they've struggled in most games he started in too.

I'd say the Everton game was probably their worst performance of the season. It was worse than anything Chelsea have produced this season, and yesterday was the first time I felt another team played better than them. I doubt it's him that's the difference though, just an interesting observation.

 

[Lee565]

Arsenal did the same mistake us, like us they needed a world class striker but wasted the funds to do so on a Chelsea under performer like we did with mount, both arsenal and united have taken a step back because of these errors

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Arsenal did the same mistake us, like us they needed a world class striker but wasted the funds to do so on a Chelsea under performer like we did with mount, both arsenal and united have taken a step back because of these errors

What a ridiculous take.

 

[DWelbz19]

What a ridiculous take.

Is it, though? Both Havertz and Mount are decent players but they are awkward tactical fits. Both obviously deserve the benefit of the doubt for now as the season has literally just started (and one hasn't even been given the chance to get going) but I would say both of them are far from ideal choices to adorn the strengths of their respective club midfields.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Is it, though? Both Havertz and Mount are decent players but they are awkward tactical fits. Both obviously deserve the benefit of the doubt for now as the season has literally just started (and one hasn't even been given the chance to get going) but I would say both of them are far from ideal choices to adorn the strengths of their respective club midfields.

The 2 signings have nothing in common, apart from being former Chelsea players, so yes, it's a terrible take.

Havertz has looked genuinely poor for Arsenal, Mount has barely played for us and his performances have so far been good (but misjudged and misunderstood by the online fan base). Mount is very likely going to be a good player for our tactical set-up, whereas Havertz just disrupts what Arsenal were doing. One is a fairly logical, straightforward recruit considering what Ten Hag is trying to do, the other is just plain bizarre.

Completely different scenarios and, yes, very bizarre take.