James Garner - Player Watch

[noodlehair]

I thought it was weird we let him go. It was too early at the time to tell how good he would be and he had enough in his locker to want to find out. Could have loaned him again but not sure what the contract situation was.

Whether he's better than Mctominay depends what you want from a midfielder. He's a much better DM because he is positionally disciplined, reads the game and can actually pass. Mctominay is better if you want someone combative, as he's miles better at disrupting, idiotic yellow cards and scoring the odd goal.

Players like Mainoo are many levels above either, and pretty much every top 6 team has players who are comfortably better, as do United when everyone's fit

 

[Wumminator]

I thought it was weird we let him go. It was too early at the time to tell how good he would be and he had enough in his locker to want to find out. Could have loaned him again but not sure what the contract situation was.

Whether he's better than Mctominay depends what you want from a midfielder. He's a much better DM because he is positionally disciplined, reads the game and can actually pass. Mctominay is better if you want someone combative, as he's miles better at disrupting, idiotic yellow cards and scoring the odd goal.

Players like Mainoo are many levels above either, and pretty much every top 6 team has players who are comfortably better, as do United when everyone's fit

We let him go because FFP encourages teams to sell their maybe home grown players

 

[Marwood]

In terms of their value as PL players, McTominay’s ability to get a goal puts him a level above, for all his obvious flaws. Midfielders who regularly get on the scoresheet are rare and extremely highly valued.

His previous best goalscoring season is 7. There's a tendency to think this seasons goalscoring form has always been a feature of his and it hasn't.

That's on top of as you say his other flaws ie. barely touching the ball.

Again - I don’t want to be antagonistic, but about two years ago you claimed Galbraith, Levitt and Garner were all superior players to McTominay. He had been given his chance because he was “big”.

One of them plays in a midtable league one club. One got relegated from the Scottish PL.

Do these players have attributes that you’d associate with “good footballer”? Yes. They look better at what some consider the fundamentals. They receive a pass and give it etc etc.

But that is not all that football is. McTominay has multiple winning goals this year and has been a mainstay for the team for hundreds of appearances. He’s the captain of his national side.

Garner could have a great career and “looks” tidier than Scott. He’s not as effective.

Andy Robertson is the captain of Scotland. Until recently Scott was playing CB for Scotland. He's never been trusted to be an actual CM for them.

I'd be interested to see those quotes.

See Wumminator’s post above for a more comprehensive response, but on this quip, no — James Maddison has made the NT this season and will go to the Euros (fitness permitting), has played European football, and is Spurs top assister. Good effort, mind. Mountain of difference between Maddison and Garner too, but you knew that.

Put the goals he’s able to offer a team and his general professionalism, size, and availability on offer and most midtable/lower table sides would bite their hands off for him. Some of our fans are blinded by the expectations at the very top of the PL.

Plenty of our players “not good enough” would still be more than comfortably good PL players. Look at Andreas and Elanga who have been mentioned who didn’t really show anywhere near what McTominay has at the top level.

It's your logic.

You said McTominay must be better because he's a key player for his national team. I'm just pointing out Maddison isn't a key player for his national team.

You used European football to say McTominay is better. Well McTominay has played much more European football than Maddison. Ata higher level as well. So your logic dictates he's better.

Club football? McTomimay has never played in the Championship or a mid table Prem team. Has only ever played for one of the world's biggest clubs. So again, your logic dictates he's a better player than Maddison.

Or could it be your logic is wrong?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

His previous best goalscoring season is 7. There's a tendency to think this seasons goalscoring form has always been a feature of his and it hasn't.

That's on top of as you say his other flaws ie. barely touching the ball.

7 in one season still looks pretty good compared to Garner’s one PL goal in his career so far, right?

 

[SilentWitness]

7 in one season still looks pretty good compared to Garner’s one PL goal in his career so far, right?

They're completely different types of midfielders.

 

[Marwood]

7 in one season still looks pretty good compared to Garner’s one PL goal in his career so far, right?

They're different ages though right. How many do you think McTominay had at 22? (Answer is 2).

But yeah, McTominay is more likely to get you a goal.

But its a reductive argument anyway. McTominay might get you a few goals. But equally if he doesn't score his selection is a bit lf a disaster.

It's becoming a narrative now that Scott is this bona fide goalscoring midfielder. He's having a decent season in that regard for the first time in his career.

 

[DWelbz19]

The point remains as Wumminator stated and hasn’t been disputed — players like Garner and Galbraith or whoever else might be tidier central midfielders, but a player who embodies the characteristics McTominay does is more valuable at the top level than a run of the mill midfielder like Garner (at least until the age of 22, he may progress at a rate suitable for a top 6 side, maybe).

McTominay has survived plenty of managers at this club and it hasn’t even been hanging on by a thread; they’ve all utilised him quite routinely because he does offer something at this level. It’s not the usual central midfielder traits you’d ideally want, but he has almost been a necessary evil for these managers.

That’s the point I was making and why I think Garner will be lucky to end up peaking at the same level McTominay has. I don’t see enough in his game to illustrate him playing for a CL level club.
———
In any case, this entire debate is honestly misguided; I honestly think if you said keeping Garner as a body instead of signing Amrabat… that would be a very sensible comment.

 

[andersj]

That argument falls down to a bit of luck in terms of how McT got into the United side/poor midfield

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I think this is becoming a bit of a myth. McT started out with competition from Matic, Pogba and Herrera. Later Matic, Pogba, Fred and Bruno. Not a bad bunch. I would argue it should have been easier for Garner. But I think EtHs lack of rotation made it more difficult for him.

Regarding McTs goalscoring, this is his first season playing less restricted. He has always been a DM. Probably by mistake.

 

[SilentWitness]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I think this is becoming a bit of a myth. McT started out with competition from Matic, Pogba and Herrera. Later Matic, Pogba, Fred and Bruno. Not a bad bunch. I would argue it should have been easier for Garner. But I think EtHs lack of rotation made it more difficult for him.

Regarding McTs goalscoring, this is his first season playing less restricted. He has always been a DM. Probably by mistake.

More the fact that he wasn't considered anything special by United and was almost on his way out to the lower divisions before Mourinho stumbled upon him.

 

[noodlehair]

We let him go because FFP encourages teams to sell their maybe home grown players

If it was down to that then its not FFP's fault that we let Pogba, Lingard, etc. go for free then sold an academy player for a fraction of their value.

 

[Marwood]

The point remains as Wumminator stated and hasn’t been disputed — players like Garner and Galbraith or whoever else might be tidier central midfielders, but a player who embodies the characteristics McTominay does is more valuable at the top level than a run of the mill midfielder like Garner (at least until the age of 22, he may progress at a rate suitable for a top 6 side, maybe).

McTominay has survived plenty of managers at this club and it hasn’t even been hanging on by a thread; they’ve all utilised him quite routinely because he does offer something at this level. It’s not the usual central midfielder traits you’d ideally want, but he has almost been a necessary evil for these managers.

That’s the point I was making and why I think Garner will be lucky to end up peaking at the same level McTominay has. I don’t see enough in his game to illustrate him playing for a CL level club.
———
In any case, this entire debate is honestly misguided; I honestly think if you said keeping Garner as a body instead of signing Amrabat… that would be a very sensible comment.

But the key part you're missing here.

Has McTominay played consistently for a big club in the Champs League because he's that talented or because of luck?

It's obviously the latter. It's the terrible recruitment at United that's enabled this.

And I like Scott, always have. Happy he's had this career. I wouldn't sell him either.

But he's been massively over promoted and some think he's therefore better than he is. Other players, better players, have just had a a more standard career progression, more in line with their ability.

 

[Mickeza]

That argument falls down to a bit of luck in terms of how McT got into the United side/poor midfield recruitment

I seriously don’t get this argument. It isn’t luck that Mctominay has impressed Jose, Ole, Ragnick (who said he was a future captain) and now ETH to become a trusted squad - and at times - first team player every year. He’s had to compete - and at times has started ahead of - Matic, Pogba, Fred, Donny, Eriksen, Amrabat and even Casemiro. It also isn’t just down to goals - he played regularly as a 6 in a team that finished 2nd and as a 6 was the best player on the pitch in a Europa league final. The issue Mctominay has is he isn’t particularly good in first phase buildup and that is all the Twitter tacticos care about - hence why Amrabat was seen as a sure fire success despite the fact he can’t fecking run and people think Ethan Galbraith is better than him (and Garner at the time ironically enough).

So let’s compare James Garner the DM against Scott Mctominay the DM considering you’re saying they’re equal and people in this thread are saying Mctominay can’t pass and Garner is obviously better goals aside:

Two seasons ago as a 6 Mctominay:
64th percentile for touches, 80th for pass completion, 65th progressive passes, 70th progressive carries, 68th tackles, 60th interceptions, 77th blocks, 91st clearances, 89th aerial duels.

James Garner this season:
13th percentile for touches, 9th for pass completion, 17th progressive passes, 38th progressive carries, 79th tackles, 79th interceptions, 64th blocks, 68th clearances, 52nd aerials won.

I know what the response will be to that. Scott was in a better team (I mean there’s no chance current Garner gets anywhere near that team - or our current team - and he literally left because he knew that which is probably the first clue Mctominay is currently better but let’s go with it). Let’s look at Garner’s numbers playing for a top team in the championship. I’m sure we’ll see this evidence he’s a much better passer/player than Mctominay there.

58th percentile for passes attempted, 65th pass completion, 56th progressive passes, 46th progressive carries, 55th tackles, 72nd interceptions, 67th blocks, 58th clearances and 42nd

Not even in the championship ranked against championship midfielders does Garner have better on-the-ball stats than can’t pass Scott as a 6 in the Premier League. Remember, this even ignores goals where Mctominay is quite clearly a bigger threat.

So I’m really struggling - my eyes tell me Mctominay is better (set-pieces aside), the stats tell me Mctominay is better even in Garner’s best role, the coaching staff and numerous managers at United have rated him higher, he regularly gets game time ahead of better players than Garner across multiple roles, he’s Scotland’s most important player whilst Garner wasn’t that a year ago even at England U21 level, West Ham and Newcastle both wanted to pay 30m+ (we wanted 40m+) for him whilst Garner went to Everton for 15m, what am I missing that makes them even remotely comparable currently outside of Mctominay being in a toxic fan environment expecting to win big trophies where everything he does is scrutinised and compared with elite footballers past and present whilst Garner plays for a relegation battling side where any flaws are ignored and anything good hugely exaggerated ala Elanga, Chong and Mengi!?

The reality is Mctominay would probably be an incredible player for Everton but it’s very unlikely he’ll go there as better teams will want him if he does leave this summer. Not to shit on Garner who I have always rated and will have a good premier league career just like Elanga.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

I never get the basis for this "either Mctominay or Garner" agenda some are trying to push. Garner would have been excellent cover for Casemiro as a natural 6 which the likes of Fred and Mctominay have NEVER been. I wish we had convinced him to stay. But he felt for the good of his career he needed more playing time now rather than being a squad player. It happens.


I'm just annoyed we never negotiated a buy back clause. For I still feel he will develop into a 6 good enough for us in the future.

 

[Dannn411]

I thought it was weird we let him go. It was too early at the time to tell how good he would be and he had enough in his locker to want to find out. Could have loaned him again but not sure what the contract situation was.

Whether he's better than Mctominay depends what you want from a midfielder. He's a much better DM because he is positionally disciplined, reads the game and can actually pass. Mctominay is better if you want someone combative, as he's miles better at disrupting, idiotic yellow cards and scoring the odd goal.

Players like Mainoo are many levels above either, and pretty much every top 6 team has players who are comfortably better, as do United when everyone's fit

It was totally stupid to let him go and when some of us on here panned the decision at the time, we were as usual shouted down on here for being negative nancies. What is even more annoying about Garner's situation is the fact that he never got a real chance in the first team so we could not even say for sure whether he would have been good here or not.

If the clowns we decided to play instead of him were all-conquering top class midfielders, you'd understand letting him go.

What is the point of an academy if you won't give the good ones enough of a chance to make the grade at the top level? We have not fought for anything truly significant in 10 years. There has been no better time to try youngsters out than in this period.

 

[Dannn411]

I seriously don’t get this argument. It isn’t luck that Mctominay has impressed Jose, Ole, Ragnick (who said he was a future captain) and now ETH to become a trusted squad - and at times - first team player every year.

There is a reason three of those managers were fired and the 4th one is going to be fired soon.

 

[Mickeza]

There is a reason three of those managers were fired and the 4th one is going to be fired soon.

Great level of discourse. You’re an intellectual heavyweight.

 

[top1whoisman]

What is the point of an academy if you won't give the good ones enough of a chance to make the grade at the top level?

We have not fought for anything truly significant in 10 years. There has been no better time to try youngsters out than in this period.

We are probably the best club when it comes to giving young players opportunities. Just because player X didn’t get a chance doesn’t mean we’re not great at it.

I also disagree with the second part. The atmosphere around the club and amongst the fanbase is and has been pretty toxic for the past decade. Players getting abused left, right and centre etc. Far from an ideal time to ask for patience when it comes to a young player making those necessary mistakes for their development.

 

[Marwood]

I seriously don’t get this argument. It isn’t luck that Mctominay has impressed Jose, Ole, Ragnick (who said he was a future captain) and now ETH to become a trusted squad - and at times - first team player every year. He’s had to compete - and at times has started ahead of - Matic, Pogba, Fred, Donny, Eriksen, Amrabat and even Casemiro. It also isn’t just down to goals - he played regularly as a 6 in a team that finished 2nd and as a 6 was the best player on the pitch in a Europa league final. The issue Mctominay has is he isn’t particularly good in first phase buildup and that is all the Twitter tacticos care about - hence why Amrabat was seen as a sure fire success despite the fact he can’t fecking run and people think Ethan Galbraith is better than him (and Garner at the time ironically enough).

So let’s compare James Garner the DM against Scott Mctominay the DM considering you’re saying they’re equal and people in this thread are saying Mctominay can’t pass and Garner is obviously better goals aside:

Two seasons ago as a 6 Mctominay:
64th percentile for touches, 80th for pass completion, 65th progressive passes, 70th progressive carries, 68th tackles, 60th interceptions, 77th blocks, 91st clearances, 89th aerial duels.

James Garner this season:
13th percentile for touches, 9th for pass completion, 17th progressive passes, 38th progressive carries, 79th tackles, 79th interceptions, 64th blocks, 68th clearances, 52nd aerials won.

I know what the response will be to that. Scott was in a better team (I mean there’s no chance current Garner gets anywhere near that team - or our current team - and he literally left because he knew that which is probably the first clue Mctominay is currently better but let’s go with it). Let’s look at Garner’s numbers playing for a top team in the championship. I’m sure we’ll see this evidence he’s a much better passer/player than Mctominay there.

58th percentile for passes attempted, 65th pass completion, 56th progressive passes, 46th progressive carries, 55th tackles, 72nd interceptions, 67th blocks, 58th clearances and 42nd

Not even in the championship ranked against championship midfielders does Garner have better on-the-ball stats than can’t pass Scott as a 6 in the Premier League. Remember, this even ignores goals where Mctominay is quite clearly a bigger threat.

So I’m really struggling - my eyes tell me Mctominay is better (set-pieces aside), the stats tell me Mctominay is better even in Garner’s best role, the coaching staff and numerous managers at United have rated him higher, he regularly gets game time ahead of better players than Garner across multiple roles, he’s Scotland’s most important player whilst Garner wasn’t that a year ago even at England U21 level, West Ham and Newcastle both wanted to pay 30m+ (we wanted 40m+) for him whilst Garner went to Everton for 15m, what am I missing that makes them even remotely comparable currently outside of Mctominay being in a toxic fan environment expecting to win big trophies where everything he does is scrutinised and compared with elite footballers past and present whilst Garner plays for a relegation battling side where any flaws are ignored and anything good hugely exaggerated ala Elanga, Chong and Mengi!?

The reality is Mctominay would probably be an incredible player for Everton but it’s very unlikely he’ll go there as better teams will want him if he does leave this summer. Not to shit on Garner who I have always rated and will have a good premier league career just like Elanga.

Midfielders have to get on the ball and pass the ball. That isn't a hipster tactico thing. Scott doesn't.

Getting into United's midfield over the last 5 years means very little. That midfield has been rubbish, our weakest area. Filled with players who are nowhere near good enough, past their best or injury prone. Managers have been sacked in part for that reason. Ole for sure.

Half decent recruitment would have meant McTominay is benched. In fact that's what happens now. As soon as everyone is available he's dropped. He's currently being dropped by an 18 year old.

He's has a massive dollop of luck to have the career he's had.

 

[cyberman]

It was totally stupid to let him go and when some of us on here panned the decision at the time, we were as usual shouted down on here for being negative nancies. What is even more annoying about Garner's situation is the fact that he never got a real chance in the first team so we could not even say for sure whether he would have been good here or not.

If the clowns we decided to play instead of him were all-conquering top class midfielders, you'd understand letting him go.

What is the point of an academy if you won't give the good ones enough of a chance to make the grade at the top level? We have not fought for anything truly significant in 10 years. There has been no better time to try youngsters out than in this period.

How many youngsters do you want us to play?

 

[SilentWitness]

I seriously don’t get this argument. It isn’t luck that Mctominay has impressed Jose, Ole, Ragnick (who said he was a future captain) and now ETH to become a trusted squad - and at times - first team player every year. He’s had to compete - and at times has started ahead of - Matic, Pogba, Fred, Donny, Eriksen, Amrabat and even Casemiro. It also isn’t just down to goals - he played regularly as a 6 in a team that finished 2nd and as a 6 was the best player on the pitch in a Europa league final. The issue Mctominay has is he isn’t particularly good in first phase buildup and that is all the Twitter tacticos care about - hence why Amrabat was seen as a sure fire success despite the fact he can’t fecking run and people think Ethan Galbraith is better than him (and Garner at the time ironically enough).

So let’s compare James Garner the DM against Scott Mctominay the DM considering you’re saying they’re equal and people in this thread are saying Mctominay can’t pass and Garner is obviously better goals aside:

Two seasons ago as a 6 Mctominay:
64th percentile for touches, 80th for pass completion, 65th progressive passes, 70th progressive carries, 68th tackles, 60th interceptions, 77th blocks, 91st clearances, 89th aerial duels.

James Garner this season:
13th percentile for touches, 9th for pass completion, 17th progressive passes, 38th progressive carries, 79th tackles, 79th interceptions, 64th blocks, 68th clearances, 52nd aerials won.

I know what the response will be to that. Scott was in a better team (I mean there’s no chance current Garner gets anywhere near that team - or our current team - and he literally left because he knew that which is probably the first clue Mctominay is currently better but let’s go with it). Let’s look at Garner’s numbers playing for a top team in the championship. I’m sure we’ll see this evidence he’s a much better passer/player than Mctominay there.

58th percentile for passes attempted, 65th pass completion, 56th progressive passes, 46th progressive carries, 55th tackles, 72nd interceptions, 67th blocks, 58th clearances and 42nd

Not even in the championship ranked against championship midfielders does Garner have better on-the-ball stats than can’t pass Scott as a 6 in the Premier League. Remember, this even ignores goals where Mctominay is quite clearly a bigger threat.

So I’m really struggling - my eyes tell me Mctominay is better (set-pieces aside), the stats tell me Mctominay is better even in Garner’s best role, the coaching staff and numerous managers at United have rated him higher, he regularly gets game time ahead of better players than Garner across multiple roles, he’s Scotland’s most important player whilst Garner wasn’t that a year ago even at England U21 level, West Ham and Newcastle both wanted to pay 30m+ (we wanted 40m+) for him whilst Garner went to Everton for 15m, what am I missing that makes them even remotely comparable currently outside of Mctominay being in a toxic fan environment expecting to win big trophies where everything he does is scrutinised and compared with elite footballers past and present whilst Garner plays for a relegation battling side where any flaws are ignored and anything good hugely exaggerated ala Elanga, Chong and Mengi!?

The reality is Mctominay would probably be an incredible player for Everton but it’s very unlikely he’ll go there as better teams will want him if he does leave this summer. Not to shit on Garner who I have always rated and will have a good premier league career just like Elanga.

Not sure why you've cut out the rest of my post where I've explained the roles both do and respective qualities both have which means your big blurb is useless. I also explained that McTominay would be great in the Doucoure role for us but not the Garner role. There's a reason why he plays where he does for Scotland and there's a reason why EtH was trying to get rid of him last summer. Using a Scotland Vs England argument with McT and Garner is daft. Garner would play for Scotland too.

 

[Dannn411]

We are probably the best club when it comes to giving young players opportunities. Just because player X didn’t get a chance doesn’t mean we’re not great at it.

I also disagree with the second part. The atmosphere around the club and amongst the fanbase is and has been pretty toxic for the past decade. Players getting abused left, right and centre etc. Far from an ideal time to ask for patience when it comes to a young player making those necessary mistakes for their development.

I do not think we are "the best" club at all at giving youngsters opportunities. Whether that's England or Europe.

 

[Dannn411]

How many youngsters do you want us to play?

Nobody's saying start 11 youngsters. But give the good ones enough of a chance to make the grade. Especially in positions where the senior players are not good enough. Like midfield and out wide. It could be regular 15 to 20 minute cameos and regular starts in the cup games. Fortunately we seem to be doing that now (with the curious exception of Amad) thanks to financial circumstances but who knows how much money could have been saved on utter dreck over the years if we'd given our good youngsters close to the first team more of a look before shipping them off.

The only reason to not give a youngster enough of a chance is if the players ahead of him in his position are so good and so important to a winning and contending team. But when they have been as mediocre as our lot of have been over the last decade, there is little excuse.

 

[Lemoor]

It was totally stupid to let him go and when some of us on here panned the decision at the time, we were as usual shouted down on here for being negative nancies. What is even more annoying about Garner's situation is the fact that he never got a real chance in the first team so we could not even say for sure whether he would have been good here or not.

If the clowns we decided to play instead of him were all-conquering top class midfielders, you'd understand letting him go.

What is the point of an academy if you won't give the good ones enough of a chance to make the grade at the top level? We have not fought for anything truly significant in 10 years. There has been no better time to try youngsters out than in this period.

His first season at Everton he barely played any football due to injuries and only started to get good game time towards the end. There is a very real possibility that if he stayed, he would be in much worse situation due to less game time and much more pressure.

 

[Dannn411]

Great level of discourse. You’re an intellectual heavyweight.

What is there to be intellectual about? The managers who were so "impressed" by Mctominay have all been fired/close to being fired. So what does that say about their judgement and decision making when they were here?

 

[top1whoisman]

I do not think we are "the best" club at all at giving youngsters opportunities. Whether that's England or Europe.

Out of the ”top” clubs I can’t think of anyone being nowhere near in England. And we tend to give those opportunities under different managers who are under immense pressure every single game.

And most of the bottom clubs are scared to do that as they’re fighting relegation.

 

[AltiUn]

This confidence is absolutely mental to me.

McTominay is in a better side, contributing more and being consistently picked for a European side for about 7 years now.

Garner is playing his first season of proper football. He could be good if he progresses.

To act like McTominay is a joke is mental.

I’m not letting a few headers and his first decent season at 26 cloud my judgement. We tried to flog him to West Ham in summer for good reason, because he isn’t and hasn’t ever been good enough. Outstaying your welcome at an underperforming club isn’t a barometer of success for me. He’s also a bit part player and has been for most of his career, Garner’s an actual starter at his club. Garner’s had multiple years of football now, it’s not his first season at all.

McTominay was afforded a wealth of opportunities despite his lacklustre performances, he comes from an era where we afforded far too many opportunities to academy players who had no business being given so many chances, like McTominay, Pereira and Lingard. Garner didn't have that luxury, he's come in under a manager who's taken a very strict approach to 20-22 year old talents, rightly or wrongly.

I didn’t say he was a joke, I even acknowledged in a separate post that Ten Hag’s found a niche use for him that he’s fulfilled pretty well.

Sorry mate a few lads in here have already explained there is not actually even a debate.

You know you're free to get involved in debate, all you ever do is go around snarkily dismissing any dissenting opinions without actually ever offering any yourself. It's often said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I suspect you'll find a level lower.

 

[Utd heap]

You know you're free to get involved in debate, all you ever do is go around snarkily dismissing any dissenting opinions without actually ever offering any yourself. It's often said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, I suspect you'll find a level lower.

Is this to long to be my tagline @mods?

 

[cyberman]

Nobody's saying start 11 youngsters. But give the good ones enough of a chance to make the grade. Especially in positions where the senior players are not good enough. Like midfield and out wide. It could be regular 15 to 20 minute cameos and regular starts in the cup games. Fortunately we seem to be doing that now (with the curious exception of Amad) thanks to financial circumstances but who knows how much money could have been saved on utter dreck over the years if we'd given our good youngsters close to the first team more of a look before shipping them off.

The only reason to not give a youngster enough of a chance is if the players ahead of him in his position are so good and so important to a winning and contending team. But when they have been as mediocre as our lot of have been over the last decade, there is little excuse.

We are giving them chances though. Mainoo and Garnacho are the glaring examples. Both have benched big names this season. If they’re good enough then they’ll play.
playing youngsters that the manager doesn’t think are good enough is ridiculous. It’s not some super secret mystery where we fans have only those 90 minutes to find out, the coaching team sees them every day and they’re in the best position to judge. It isn’t a mystery to them.
We have a responsibility to the players in the academy to train them up in all aspects of the game to make sure they’re ready for first team football. It’s not an ah feck it I don’t like Scott in midfield so let’s throw this random youngster in fix all for frustrated fans.
The academy can’t be judged on who you want to play because you don’t like the player you want replaced while ignoring the other many youngsters we give chances to.
We were a fleeting moment in time from having Garnacho / Rashford / Greenwood as our front 3 with Pogba and Scott in midfield. You could really stretch that and have Mainoo in midfield as an academy front 6 that would have every excuse to be our starting front 6. Add in those like Elanga who we gave plenty of chances to and then sold.
If Scott McTominay dropped down a level and had whatever he has, 17 (?) goals for club and country there would be threads on here praising his ability from the same posters giving him shit now.
I can’t believe this discussion is happening in a Garner thread.

 

[andersj]

More the fact that he wasn't considered anything special by United and was almost on his way out to the lower divisions before Mourinho stumbled upon him.

Maybe that is true. But he trained regularly with the first team during LvGs time at the club. He was 19 at the time. I think he was higher rated by the club than «fans». And certainly RedCafe.

 

[Borninthe80ts]

In relation to the comparison between Garner and McTominay im not sure there is really, as for me their 2 different players. Garner is a sitting midfielder that’s good at controlling the tempo of the game from deep and can come onto the ball and score from distance. He has a good range of passing like Carrick and the trajectory may be similar.

McTominay is a box to box midfielder that can score goals and help press the opposition up high. He is a squad player that can come in for rotation and contribute in specific tactical scenarios.

I wouldn’t ask one to the job of the other as it would negate their best characteristics but I can see why people compare them. We have a few ex youth players of this level who would probably have been still here as squad players under Ferguson like Evans should have been.

 

[Forest Red]

I’m not letting a few headers and his first decent season at 26 cloud my judgement. We tried to flog him to West Ham in summer for good reason, because he isn’t and hasn’t ever been good enough. Outstaying your welcome at an underperforming club isn’t a barometer of success for me. He’s also a bit part player and has been for most of his career, Garner’s an actual starter at his club. Garner’s had multiple years of football now, it’s not his first season at all.

McTominay was afforded a wealth of opportunities despite his lacklustre performances, he comes from an era where we afforded far too many opportunities

Garner is playing his first season of proper football. He could be good if he progresses.

To act like McTominay is a joke is mental.

McTominay was a joke when he came on at the City Ground. Gave us two goals by being a completely inept CDM. Garner wouldn’t have done that.

 

[TheReligion]

More the fact that he wasn't considered anything special by United and was almost on his way out to the lower divisions before Mourinho stumbled upon him.

That’s completely false

 

[Robbie Boy]

I honestly think he's as average as they come. I have no qualms with us selling him at all.

 

[eire-red]

The point remains as Wumminator stated and hasn’t been disputed — players like Garner and Galbraith or whoever else might be tidier central midfielders, but a player who embodies the characteristics McTominay does is more valuable at the top level than a run of the mill midfielder like Garner (at least until the age of 22, he may progress at a rate suitable for a top 6 side, maybe).

McTominay has survived plenty of managers at this club and it hasn’t even been hanging on by a thread; they’ve all utilised him quite routinely because he does offer something at this level. It’s not the usual central midfielder traits you’d ideally want, but he has almost been a necessary evil for these managers.

That’s the point I was making and why I think Garner will be lucky to end up peaking at the same level McTominay has. I don’t see enough in his game to illustrate him playing for a CL level club.
———
In any case, this entire debate is honestly misguided; I honestly think if you said keeping Garner as a body instead of signing Amrabat… that would be a very sensible comment.

100% agree with everything you've said.

McTominay is a good example of the often unobservable that makes a certain type of player valuable.

From what we can see, I think McTominay's value is his contribution in the attacking and defensive thirds of the pitch, which is ironic as he's a midfielder.

I think that explains why he struggles against good sides, the game is often won and lost in midfield and he gets lost in the intricacy of the midfield battle.

Against lesser opposition, he gets more time on the ball to counter that weakness, but decisive moments in both boxes are worth a lot.

Players like Garner (where he is now, not discounting what he might become) are just that neat and tidy continuity player that can fulfill a role, but you need at least one stand out quality to make it at the next level. I haven't seen what that is yet.

 

[Rozay]

He’s not good enough. Yes, he is of course a better midfielder than McTominay, but he himself is not a United player. He’s right where he needs to be.

 

[SilentWitness]

That’s completely false

Nope.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ho-inside-story-midfield-tactic-a8230886.html

 

[Wumminator]

He’s not good enough. Yes, he is of course a better midfielder than McTominay, but he himself is not a United player. He’s right where he needs to be.

How is he of course better than McTominay?

 

[TheReligion]

Nope.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ho-inside-story-midfield-tactic-a8230886.html

Ahh sorry I thought you were talking about Garner

 

[Cassidy]

He’s not good enough. Yes, he is of course a better midfielder than McTominay, but he himself is not a United player. He’s right where he needs to be.

He isn’t better than McTominay

 

[SilentWitness]

He isn’t better than McTominay

Garner in a double pivot > McT.

McT in Doucoure role > Garner.