Is it really worth it sign a significantly lesser talent just because he's played more football? Sancho appears to have something special and personally I'm willing to put up with a year of inconsistency to have a player with that magical quality in their boots in our team. Unless the difference is marginal, you have to bag these sort of talents as somebody else will and they're hard to come by.I've got to admit that I got on the Sancho bandwagon and wanted United to sign him but I think Jadon Sancho needs to prove himself next season to ensure that he's no one season wonder. I'm a little wary of us signing a player who's that young and for such a massive price. I would rather go for someone who's in their early 20s and will substantially improve our right wing immensely from Mata and Lingard. At present, I would consider either Pepe or Lozano. We wouldn't need to break the bank or pay huge wages.
Also, I remember everyone here being against signing Kane because we felt he may be a one season wonder. But sometimes you have to take that chance on a talent you're certain about. In Kane's case, the posters who made the case for him were provne correct. I found his talent harder to guage because his all round game did not seem to be that impressive. But the point is that anybody given the chance to sign him should have (not that they were) despite only doing for a year.
Also everyone here keeps claiming we have too much good/decent talent in our team. Do you feel the likes of Lozano and Pepe are on a different level to that entirely?