[The Hilton]

I just think it's such a lazy rebuttal to criticism of a player 90% of the time.

It can be, for sure. In this case though, there's no underlying motive, I simply don't think he's shown enough to his game to be good enough for where we want to be.

Tbf that particular poster accused me of having a midfield agenda after the Bournemouth game, because I said a proper midfield setup with cover might have stopped some of the goals. So every now and again, I call their posts out as an agenda.

They're in here shitting on a kid, who's not played much for months and has come back in the team and been one of the better performing players over the last few weeks.

As for the goal, I don't see how anyone can blame Mainoo, it's all on Shaw for letting the ball bounce, everyone else is trying to play catch up to make up for his mistake.

Speaking of a lazy rebuttal, accusing me of "shitting on" a player when criticise them falls into that category too. Regarding the goal, Shaw made a terrible mess of the long ball, but it would have come to nothing had Soucek been marked in the midfield area at the start of the move, or if his run was tracked at the end. Shaw's mistake was the catalyst, but he's far from the only person at fault.

Overall this is quite interesting, you held the midfield to blame for the Bournemouth game, but refuse to blame the midfield for allowing Soucek the freedom of our half last night. That's quite the dichotomy.

 

[Pickle85]

I mean, "never" is obviously an exggeration but this thread is riddled with criticism for not passing the ball forward enough. Which is, ironically, highly reminiscent of the criticism the manager who finally saw his value used to get when he played for us. I don't think every central midfielder has to "make things happen". Especially someone playing in the same team as Bruno and Casemiro, who both love playing vertical, Hollywood passes. Mainoo's skillset and style complements them perfectly and is one of the most important factors in our recent resurgence. Evidence of which was all over yesterday's game, despite the result. A game in which our midfield did their job very well, apart from that one moment of loose marking when we conceded.

I agree to a point, not every midfielder needs to always be making things happen, or to always be playing Hollywood passes, but too often Kobbie just receives the ball and immediately knocks it off to the nearest player. That's not to say that this is never the right option - often (maybe even more often than not) it is, but to my mind he does it too regularly. He has it in his locker to do more (and by that I don't necessarily mean to play those raking long passes, or defence-splitting through balls, I mean to pass a LITTLE more courageously) - I just wish he'd show it more often. I also agree to a point that our midfield did their job well (I think very well is an exaggeration) but there's more to a functional midfield than keeping hold of the ball and playing from side to side. As for the arguable brainfart when he let whatshisname run off him - it happens from time to time and I'm sure he'll learn from it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

allowing Soucek the freedom of our half

You really do talk a lot of unmitigated bollox in this thread. I really hope it’s a blind spot and you’re less insane when you post in other threads.

 

[The Hilton]

You really do talk a lot of unmitigated bollox in this thread. I really hope it’s a blind spot and you’re less insane when you post in other threads.

I could turn that accusation back on you, considering this is how you describe a bobbling ball that was overhit and ran out of play:

lovely dinked pass.

Had Ugarte played that pass you'd be much more objective describing it.

I know it's easy to get attached to academy lads, but you seem to take the criticism somewhat personally. You were equally vociferous in your disagreement about criticism of Garnacho too, do you still think he's "so close to being world class" or agree that it would be a "huge mistake" to sell him? Or can you perhaps admit that the blinkers come on when discussing young players at the club?

 

[JustinC00]

very poor for the goal.

He didn't do well on the goal but I'm not gonna put that one on him. That goal was 100% on Shaw being an absolute moron that stopped tracking Bowen to go to ground to win the ball and completely whiffed. If Shaw just stays with Bowen he wouldn't have had a free run into the box to put that ball in or if Shaw just stays up Soucek wouldn't have had a free run into the box

 

[Oranges038]

It can be, for sure. In this case though, there's no underlying motive, I simply don't think he's shown enough to his game to be good enough for where we want to be.



Speaking of a lazy rebuttal, accusing me of "shitting on" a player when criticise them falls into that category too. Regarding the goal, Shaw made a terrible mess of the long ball, but it would have come to nothing had Soucek been marked in the midfield area at the start of the move, or if his run was tracked at the end. Shaw's mistake was the catalyst, but he's far from the only person at fault.

Overall this is quite interesting, you held the midfield to blame for the Bournemouth game, but refuse to blame the midfield for allowing Soucek the freedom of our half last night. That's quite the dichotomy.

Not really, Shaw lets the ball bounce, as a defender it's just basic common sense at any level of the game to deal with that situation, by not letting the ball bounce. I tell 11 year olds this every week, as soon as you let it bounce, everyone is on the back foot.

Everything that happens after that is a consequence of his mistake, even after he dives in to try and retrieve it. Everyone else is scrambling back to make up for it. Yeah, sure others can and maybe could do better, but for me, an experienced player making such a basic mistake at this level should take the brunt of the blame. I'm sure he knows it too.

In the Bournemouth game, I think I said the mistakes were made higher up the pitch, where a better setup and cover in midfield could have stopped those attacks breaking right through the middle. Which was quite clearly an area they targeted in the second half.

 

[Olecurls99]

Decent game. Beautiful cross for the offside goal but fell asleep for their goal.

 

[gajender]

Those players are rare though, arsenal don't either.

Agreed those players are rare but you have to be in for them if and when they emerge if you look at our transfer dealings post Sir Alex's retirement it seems we go out of our way to avoid them and have taken complete opposite direction more or less.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I thought he played well. Their goal had three or four mistakes from our team before Mainoo. His taking of the ball in tight areas is helping us play out from the back and it is clear the other players trust him with it more now than before.

Give it a couple of years and he is likely to be a huge player for us.

 

[The Hilton]

Not really, Shaw lets the ball bounce, as a defender it's just basic common sense at any level of the game to deal with that situation, by not letting the ball bounce. I tell 11 year olds this every week, as soon as you let it bounce, everyone is on the back foot.

Everything that happens after that is a consequence of his mistake with eveyone else scrambling back to make up for it. Yeah, sure others can and maybe could make up for it, but for me, an experienced player making such a basic mistake at this level should take the brunt of the blame. I'm sure he knows it too.

In the Bournemouth game, I think I said the mistakes were made higher up the pitch, where a better setup and cover in midfield could have stopped those attacks breaking right through the middle. Which was quite clearly an area they targeted in the second half.

Mistakes always happen though, players need to be positioned to anticipate and mitigate risk. One missed header isn't an acceptable reason for the entire team behind the forwards falling to pieces. After Shaw's mistake (which was amateurish, no argument there, but not exactly unexpected given who we're talking about), there were numerous opportunities to prevent the goal, from Soucek receiving the ball in acres of space in midfield because nobody was marking him, to Martinez not trying to prevent the cross, to the midfielders again not following the run of Soucek and allowing him to get in front to score.

If we followed your logic here for the Bournemouth game, that the first mistake sets off an unpreventable chain reaction and that person takes all the blame, then the midfield wouldn't be to blame for those goals either, as they came from a giveaway from Shaw, Cunha missing a header, a giveaway from Dalot, and a giveaway from Sesko from a dodgy throw in. Your new logic runs contrary to your previous logic, so we're back to the dichotomy.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I could turn that accusation back on you, considering this is how you describe a bobbling ball that was overhit and ran out of play:



Had Ugarte played that pass you'd be much more objective describing it.

I know it's easy to get attached to academy lads, but you seem to take the criticism somewhat personally. You were equally vociferous in your disagreement about criticism of Garnacho too, do you still think he's "so close to being world class" or agree that it would be a "huge mistake" to sell him? Or can you perhaps admit that the blinkers come on when discussing young players at the club?

No idea why you feel the need to bring Ugarte into a discussion about Mainoo, never mind Garnacho. Weird thing to do but ok. If you want to know my opinion on Ugarte you only need to read my most recent post in the thread dedicated to him.

 

[ManhattanRed]

I thought he was good yesterday. He does need to find ways to impact the game more but that will hopefully come with time.

 

[The Hilton]

No idea why you feel the need to bring Ugarte into a discussion about Mainoo, never mind Garnacho. Weird thing to do but ok. If you want to know my opinion on Ugarte you only need to read my most recent post in the thread dedicated to him.

Come on mate, this is all over the place, you're the one who brought up other threads. I simply followed that train of thought with an example of you hyperbolically inflating the abilities of, and getting overly defensive about criticism of, another young player who you ended up being wrong about. Because it's eerily familiar to this thread.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Come on mate, this is all over the place, you're the one who brought up other threads. I simply followed that train of thought with an example of you hyperbolically inflating the abilities of, and getting overly defensive about criticism of, another young player who you ended up being wrong about. Because it's eerily familiar to this thread.

Please read my post on Ugarte. Because what I say in there most definitely applies to your take on Mainoo.

 

[JB08]

marco bizot.

 

[Still ill]

I thought he was poor enough, same as the rest of them last night. That languid style is a thing of beauty when we're fizzing but a second or two late with the pass, as he was regularly last night, and everything shuts down. Not just him, hard to find room out there last night but still. Poor for the goal along with everyone else. He's been fab of late, he's allowed an off night, hope tosee him back to his best next week.

 

[Hammondo]

Agreed those players are rare but you have to be in for them if and when they emerge if you look at our transfer dealings post Sir Alex's retirement it seems we go out of our way to avoid them and have taken complete opposite direction more or less.

I agree, but I have given up on it.

 

[Berggy20913]

Maybe that game will get the Guimaraes comparisons and the talk about him starting for England back to a reasonable level. Don't think, he had a bad game, he did alright, didn't look great defensively in their goal but overall, wasn't terrible. PLayed mostly the exact same as he played in the games before, just with less favorable environments (for the most part).

Despite your feelings of vindication, it won't and it shouldn't. He's too good to be looked at on a game to game basis at this point, so it would take a string of bad games.

 

[Berggy20913]

It can be, for sure. In this case though, there's no underlying motive, I simply don't think he's shown enough to his game to be good enough for where we want to be.



Speaking of a lazy rebuttal, accusing me of "shitting on" a player when criticise them falls into that category too. Regarding the goal, Shaw made a terrible mess of the long ball, but it would have come to nothing had Soucek been marked in the midfield area at the start of the move, or if his run was tracked at the end. Shaw's mistake was the catalyst, but he's far from the only person at fault.

Overall this is quite interesting, you held the midfield to blame for the Bournemouth game, but refuse to blame the midfield for allowing Soucek the freedom of our half last night. That's quite the dichotomy.

When you post things that are objectively incorrect, rebuttals are just a natural response.

 

[The Hilton]

Please read my post on Ugarte. Because what I say in there most definitely applies to your take on Mainoo.

It doesn't at all, as I've happily admitted that Mainoo has been a "little better recently". If that post on Ugarte summarised your opinion on Mainoo, your position would be much more reasonable, and we'd simply be disagreeing about his ceiling. Instead you're extolling the virtues of passing the ball out of play for an opposition goal kick.

You keep avoiding this point, it's one you really should reflect on - you have previous for overrating our young players. And you're so defensive about criticism of Mainoo, is it really so difficult to accept that others don't rate him as highly as you do? There's no malice or agenda here, despite you trying allude to one numerous times across multiple threads. If I end up being wrong about Mainoo, say he improves the many areas of his game he needs to or is a starter in a team that's challenging for top honours, then I'll admit that I'm wrong and be really happy about it.

 

[The Hilton]

When you post things that are objectively incorrect, rebuttals are just a natural response.

Some dictionary time is in order it seems.

 

[Berggy20913]

Some dictionary time is in order it seems.

"Objectively incorrect describes a statement that is undeniably false, factually wrong, or illogical, completely independent of personal feelings, bias, or opinion. It refers to claims that fail to align with verifiable reality or internal logic, such as "2+2=5" or stating that a liquid is a solid. "

Lots of dictionary time is in order if the term "objectively incorrect" is something you struggle with. A dictionary and a prayer book is in order if English is your first language.

 

[Pickle85]

"Objectively incorrect describes a statement that is undeniably false, factually wrong, or illogical, completely independent of personal feelings, bias, or opinion. It refers to claims that fail to align with verifiable reality or internal logic, such as "2+2=5" or stating that a liquid is a solid. "

Lots of dictionary time is in order if the term "objectively incorrect" is something you struggle with. A dictionary and a prayer book is in order if English is your first language.

In fairness, the fact that there's any argument about it proves his point.

 

[Berggy20913]

In fairness, the fact that there's any argument about it proves his point.

It's 2026. People will tell you water is dry and the sun rises in the west. You can say there's areas of his game that need improvement and that there's no guarantee he'll get there and be 100% right, but to say he hasn't shown anything to indicate he'll be a legitimate starting level midfielder for a top level club is objectively incorrect.

 

[The Hilton]

"Objectively incorrect describes a statement that is undeniably false, factually wrong, or illogical, completely independent of personal feelings, bias, or opinion. It refers to claims that fail to align with verifiable reality or internal logic, such as "2+2=5" or stating that a liquid is a solid. "

Lots of dictionary time is in order if the term "objectively incorrect" is something you struggle with. A dictionary and a prayer book is in order if English is your first language.

I know I'm effectively playing chess with a pigeon here, but lets test your claim. The statement that you called "objectively incorrect" was the following:

I simply don't think he's shown enough to his game to be good enough for where we want to be.

Given that where we want to be is challenging for titles and top honours, the PL and CL effectively, the only way to objectively measure that is whether he's been starting in midfield for a team that's challenged for the PL or the CL. He's never done that, and therefore your claim of objectivity is obviously wrong.

Edit:

It's 2026. People will tell you water is dry and the sun rises in the west. You can say there's areas of his game that need improvement and that there's no guarantee he'll get there and be 100% right, but to say he hasn't shown anything to indicate he'll be a legitimate starting level midfielder for a top level club is objectively incorrect.

You're now strawmanning the argument. I said he "hasn't shown enough". You had to change it to "hasn't shown anything" in order for your point to stick. There's a huge difference between the two statements.

 

[Hammondo]

When you post things that are objectively incorrect, rebuttals are just a natural response.

How is it objectively incorrect.

 

[Berggy20913]

I know I'm effectively playing chess with a pigeon here, but lets test your claim. The statement that you called "objectively incorrect" was the following:



Given that where we want to be is challenging for titles and top honours, the PL and CL effectively, the only way to objectively measure that is whether he's been starting in midfield for a team that's challenged for the PL or the CL. He's never done that, and therefore your claim of objectivity is obviously wrong.

Edit:



You're now strawmanning the argument. I said he "hasn't shown enough". You had to change it to "hasn't shown anything" in order for your point to stick. There's a huge difference between the two statements.

"I simply don't think he's shown enough to his game to be good enough for where we want to be"

Your words, but he has shown enough so it's not true regardless of the semantics, and you wouldn't have to start using semantics like the bolded text if your take on him had an iota of truth to it. Carry on though.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It doesn't at all, as I've happily admitted that Mainoo has been a "little better recently". If that post on Ugarte summarised your opinion on Mainoo, your position would be much more reasonable, and we'd simply be disagreeing about his ceiling. Instead you're extolling the virtues of passing the ball out of play for an opposition goal kick.

You keep avoiding this point, it's one you really should reflect on - you have previous for overrating our young players. And you're so defensive about criticism of Mainoo, is it really so difficult to accept that others don't rate him as highly as you do? There's no malice or agenda here, despite you trying allude to one numerous times across multiple threads. If I end up being wrong about Mainoo, say he improves the many areas of his game he needs to or is a starter in a team that's challenging for top honours, then I'll admit that I'm wrong and be really happy about it.

Yeah, right. With the speed you're moving the goalposts he'll need a couple of Balon D'Or's under his belt to get your grudging approval.

You've already changed your stance on him from "so bad that the worst manager in the history of our club (with a case for being one of the worst managers ever to work in the PL) was fully justified in completely freezing him out for the first half of this season" to "not good enough to be a starter in a team that's challenging for top honours".

I'm the most argumentative person on redcafe and even I have better things to do than continue this ridiculous back and forth while you painfully slowly come to the obvious conclusion that he's a very good young central midfielder with bags of potential, who should have been an integral member of our team from the beginning of this season.

 

[Pickle85]

Yeah, right. With the speed you're moving the goalposts he'll need a couple of Balon D'Or's under his belt to get your grudging approval.

You've already changed your stance on him from "so bad that the worst manager in the history of our club (with a case for being one of the worst managers ever to work in the PL) was fully justified in completely freezing him out for the first half of this season" to "not good enough to be a starter in a team that's challenging for top honours".

I'm the most argumentative person on redcafe and even I have better things to do than continue this ridiculous back and forth while you painfully slowly come to the obvious conclusion that he's a very good young central midfielder with bags of potential, who should have been an integral member of our team from the beginning of this season.

HOW DARE YOU I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THIS AND WILL NOT BACK DOWN

 

[The Hilton]

"I simply don't think he's shown enough to his game to be good enough for where we want to be"

Your words, but he has shown enough so it's not true regardless of the semantics, and you wouldn't have to start using semantics like the bolded text if your take on him had an iota of truth to it. Carry on though.

And you accused me of needing a prayer book if English was my first language!

 

[Hammondo]

"I simply don't think he's shown enough to his game to be good enough for where we want to be"

Your words, but he has shown enough so it's not true regardless of the semantics, and you wouldn't have to start using semantics like the bolded text if your take on him had an iota of truth to it. Carry on though.

But that's subjective.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

HOW DARE YOU I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THIS AND WILL NOT BACK DOWN

You're single issue argumentative wanker (Bruno) I reserve the right to be an argumentative wanker on any and all topics of conversation.

 

[Pickle85]

You're single issue argumentative wanker (Bruno) I reserve the right to be an argumentative wanker on any and all topics of conversation.

Understood. I still have much to learn - let me know if you're ever in the market for a mentee.

 

[The Hilton]

Yeah, right. With the speed you're moving the goalposts he'll need a couple of Balon D'Or's under his belt to get your grudging approval.

You've already changed your stance on him from "so bad that the worst manager in the history of our club (with a case for being one of the worst managers ever to work in the PL) was fully justified in completely freezing him out for the first half of this season" to "not good enough to be a starter in a team that's challenging for top honours".

I'm the most argumentative person on redcafe and even I have better things to do than continue this ridiculous back and forth while you painfully slowly come to the obvious conclusion that he's a very good young central midfielder with bags of potential, who should have been an integral member of our team from the beginning of this season.

It wouldn't take any Balon D'Ors, I'd settle for being a starter in a team that challenges, even if the same numerous gaps in his game are still present.

There's also no change in stance between the two you've posted, he didn't work in Amorim's system, it's not that long ago he was dominated by the League Two Grimsby midfield as part of it, and while he's been better in Carrick's mid block it's been Casemiro who's done all the heavy lifting in midfield.

As for your final paragraph, I don't even agree that central midfield is his best position, he's better closer to the opposition goal.

What we do agree on is how argumentative you are. You've put that power to full use being really wrong about how good young players are in the past. This is more of the same.

 

[klayton88]

Majority of his passes were 5 yards to Martinez and asking him to be the progressive passer.

 

[Fortitude]

Yep. No forward passes or offensive contributions as people are comfortable hitting post reply on without a hint of irony.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It wouldn't take any Balon D'Ors, I'd settle for being a starter in a team that challenges, even if the same numerous gaps in his game are still present.

There's also no change in stance between the two you've posted, he didn't work in Amorim's system, it's not that long ago he was dominated by the League Two Grimsby midfield as part of it, and while he's been better in Carrick's mid block it's been Casemiro who's done all the heavy lifting in midfield.

As for your final paragraph, I don't even agree that central midfield is his best position, he's better closer to the opposition goal.

What we do agree on is how argumentative you are. You've put that power to full use being really wrong about how good young players are in the past. This is more of the same.

You know I’m almost tempted to admire the brass neck from you, of all people, trying to weaponise past opinions in this thread. But I can assure you, I’m far more comfortable having my notion that Garnacho is/was a young player with a lot of potential on my headstone than coming at this with your Redcafe CV. Obstinately proclaiming Amorim as the chosen one, long past the point at which every other fecker on here could see what a rotten job he was doing. And still refusing to admit you were wrong after Carrick took four games to achieve what he couldn’t manage in over a year.

But whatever, this is pointless. I would bet good money that Mainoo will eventually prove you wrong but wouldn’t waste a single penny betting that you would admit it. So I’ll stick you on ignore. Life’s too short.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yep. No forward passes or offensive contributions as people are comfortable hitting post reply on without a hint of irony.

If you showed that video to a football fan with no context at all and told them that a fan of the football club this player play for described that performance as “a passenger… ….lost the ball too often, and his phobia of passing the ball forwards limits how useful he can be in a game like this.” They would assume that opinion was posted from a padded cell.

 

[mav_9me]

I guess to each his own.

I would build the midfield around Mainoo.

 

[Fortitude]

If you showed that video to a football fan with no context at all and told them that a fan of the football club this player play for described that performance as “a passenger… ….lost the ball too often, and his phobia of passing the ball forwards limits how useful he can be in a game like this.” They would assume that opinion was posted from a padded cell.

I’ve long since given up on this thread, but can’t help but pop in from time to time at which point I remember why I gave up on it all over again.

Kobbie is not held to the same standard as the majority of our players and the hypercritical, unobjective posts to that end are actually sad to see.