A superb footballer, but the fee is excessive in light of the squad man role we would use him as. No disrespect, but a pass.
Morgan Rogers
- Thread starter Tom Van Persie
- Start date
Yeah hoping he remains on the market for 2027, however with Villa's PSR situation I highly doubt it
Could Liverpool look to sign him to bolster their attack?
Depends whether they get Diomande probably
Good when he's in form, but he loses possession a lot regardless of form. Among players with 1000+ minutes in the league this season, only 6 has lost possession (unsuccessful touches/90 + dispossed/90) more frequently than Rogers.
https://www.whoscored.com/regions/2...erstatistics/england-premier-league-2025-2026
https://www.whoscored.com/regions/2...erstatistics/england-premier-league-2025-2026
The problem is that he costs 80m and will be a back up. We can't afford to spend that money on a player in a position we don't need. I also think he would struggle with the pressure here, already a bit inconsistent for Villa. I think he is a good player and can develop even further but he can also turn out to be a Dele Alli. Even if we could use him, I would take a player with a different style than someone very similar to Cunha.
Got any names in mind?
Assuming we're signing an actual LW and Rogers were to play a 10, I would rather have Ibrahim Maza. I think he is an elite talent and a player that we can't miss out on.
Rogers can play LW though, as well as a 10.
You're claiming that United can't afford to spend 80mil on Rogers, who can play both positions, yet also that United might be able to sign both a dedicated LW, as well as Maza for the 10! Maza on his own could well already cost 80mil, and then you're not going to get any kind of worthwhile dedicated LW for nothing.
I'm saying we can't afford to spend 80m on a player we don't need. There is no reasonable logic in signing another number 10 that can play LW. Cunha can also play LW, it doesn't mean he should do it going forward into next season. We should look to sign a potential elite LW, not someone that can do an okay role there.
If Maza costs 80m then it's a pass from me this summer. Again, we don't need players in that position, but if we were to sign one, I would rather have Maza. Doesnt' mean I think we should be after him this summer when we have far more pressing needs.
Morgan Rogers won’t be a squad player he’ll start most games wide left or false 9 and occasionally wide right.
There are always injuries, Amad time is about to be significantly reduced, Bruno will drop deeper in some games as well.
If we do well next season we’ll play 60 matches, that’s more than enough for everyone?
Do you think United should spend 80m on him?
The transfer makes no sense at all. There are two positions he can play for us, CAM or LW. He is terrible on RW. We already play a CAM on the LW (Cunha), so why sign another CAM to play him out of his position? Seriously bizarre how so many want this to happen.
I know, and for 80m. Makes zero sense
Rogers has a better G+A per minute output from LW than from AM at Villa right now...
He can do more than "an okay role" there.
Cunha has been better at LW than the supposed "winger" Amad has been at RW. I see no problem with him continuing there, or having a player with a similar profile to rotate with him if they keep their output up.
As an aside, Rogers last season had a better G+A from RW even than he has as a 10 in either season, albeit mostly switching to assists (crosses) rather than goals - 9 assists + 1 goal in 1350 minutes at RW last season, which is not shabby at all...
Is he? See above.
Considering what Leverkusen sold Wirtz for, you'd have to think they'd hold out for something like that.
I think Rogers is probably better and more useful as a winger tbh. Someone like Maza, who is a more pure, dedicated 10, can wait until the summer after this one, when Bruno might be out the door.
Would you pay 80m for Rogers?
If United can't get either Diomande or Barcola this summer, then yeah. Beyond these three I'm not sure there are any other players potentially available for LW at the level United need to seriously challenge on multiple fronts. That Rogers can also do a decent job if needed at AM and RW is a bonus.
I think he's a similar standard to the likes of Mbeumo and Semenyo, while being still only 23, so considering the going rate for that kind of player is about £65-70mil, then £80mil for an England international who is c.2 years younger doesn't sound outrageous tbh. Obviously it would be good to knock it down to more like £70-75mil, but he does have a long time left on his contract.
Honestly I'm surprised that such a deal seems possible, in signing the best attacking player of a top 6 PL club (who is also young and English). If true it just seems a good opportunity. He's the kind of quality, versatile attacking player that title chasing teams like Arsenal and City happily pack their squads with, even if they cost a bit.
If you were a Utd fan who had issues with McT then it doesn't make much sense to want Rodgers, as he is a slightly more mobile version of Scotty in an attacking role.
Great athlete, strikes a beautiful ball but the meat of his game, general technique, passing range and execution, first touch, is often very average.
Great athlete, strikes a beautiful ball but the meat of his game, general technique, passing range and execution, first touch, is often very average.
I don’t know what you’re seeing in him that the majority, including Villa fans, aren’t. He’s not close to being an 80m player. I wouldn’t class him as a winger either, he’s yet another cut in and shoot type like Antony.
I think I’m going to leave this thread because honestly the thought of wasting money on him irritates me
That's what wingers are nowadays. Where have you been the last two decades?
In your other post where you claimed I was letting the "goldens" down somehow, you also completely dodged giving examples to the contrary.
Having wingers who are wide forwards directly contributes goals, rather than them having to fish for assists. More players in positions to score goals means more goals. Width and crosses comes more from the full-backs.
I’m not saying he’s a perfect signing but I think Bruno might leave in 2 years max, so it’s a smart move in that respect?
Maximum of £80m over 5 years amortised is £18m per year and probably £8m per year in wages because of his age.
Worst way you would sell him at 24/25 at £60m, you don’t lose on this player and prepare for Bruno leaving in 2 years.
Put this into perspective Casemiro at 29 cost is £14m per year in transfer and £18m in wages, we’ve had 2 and half good seasons out of five and no resale value!
So yes then, you’d spend 80m of the budget on him. Interesting
We already have cut in and shoot types in Cunha, Amad and Mbeumo. We need something different. We have a giant hungry young CF who would thrive on crosses, yet we don’t do that enough. That’s why I would like an old fashioned winger
Btw the most exciting time for me as a fan was not 99, it was when we had Sharpe, Kanchelskis and Giggs burning down the wings, feeding off Hughes and Cantona. Supported by Ince, Robbo and a very young Keane. Pace and power throughout. That for me was real get off your seat stuff
Exactly, so we're going to spend 80m on a winger only to have to spend 50m on a LB to get our width and crossing. Just spend it on a winger who can cross.
Yep. I just don’t get the logic of buying Rogers, especially for the fee it would take. He offers nothing different from what we have
Only because his ceiling is potentially a £125m player when he becomes more consistent, he destroyed us at Villa park this season, they were awful but he was fantastic.
He had 9 goals 6 assists so 15 Goal involvements in 35 PL matches. He’s fit most of the time has 55 Goal involvements in 122 appearances for Villa, he is England starter or at least first sub so yes I would pay £80m for a 23 year old that has proven he can play 50 matches in a season in the last two season and produce the goods.
Under Carrick at Borough he had 16 Goals and assists in 33 matches.
In the Champions League he has 7 goal involvements from 12 appearances and 5 Goal involvements from 13 in Europa League.
Why on earth does anyone think £80m for Rogers is expensive, he’s gone a little flat because he’s played so much football in last two years , in every single metric this is a £100m player, more so than Elliot Anderson will ever be?
To sell him at 24/25 you'd need to sell him immediately because he will be 24 in July.
No he is not he is pretty average footballer whose reputation is built on hot streak of goals which also seem to have dried up lately , look beyond the goals he doesn't look look like a player who is making grade at top Club .
Why does it have to be different? As long as it's really good? We need quality all over the squad with more fixtures.
Rogers' ceiling could be very high imo. Ticks all the boxes. Great technique, great physique, plays every week and is never injured, can slot into 3 positions, entering his prime years.
It's understandable if the fee is high.
Villa can ask for what they like obviously, but I hope that this goes the same way as Branthwaite and Baleba. That the club don't agree to pay over the odds for a player who no matter how you break down the financial impact is genuinely not worth £80m and I agree Anderson isn't worth £100m either.
I personally don't see the game changer others are seeing, I often watch him do F' all and then he will pop up with a goal, then everything poor about that match is forgotten.
I personally don't see the game changer others are seeing, I often watch him do F' all and then he will pop up with a goal, then everything poor about that match is forgotten.
We are never gonna become a great team if we continue to target players like Rogers who mostly excel in transition , we can't be building a team full of players of similar ilk and act surprised when we look clueless against teams who are happy to sit back and cede possession .
Good player. Realistically worth about £50m but he's English so he'll easily double that.
Cunha is one of my favourite players and performs in big games. If we can get Rogers for cheap (we won’t) and he’s happy with being a squad player (he won’t) then I’m all for it
I think he's a good player. But we're crying out for a winger who has the capacity to go past a man — especially now that Amad's got the yips in that regard. Ideally someone who combines that with productive output as well like, well, let's not be shy about it, Michael Olise.
Don't think Rogers is that guy.
Don't think Rogers is that guy.
I think those in favour of Rogers are pointing to fair points: age, availability, consistently strong G/A performance (even in spite of the fact he somehow scores so many ridiculous low percentage longshots) etc… but are missing the most obvious issue: far too similar (rather, not different enough) in profile to Cunha to justify such large outlay.
Those journalist sound bites about him being a long-term Fernandes replacement, though… not in the slightest. He’s a certified wingfielder with a good shot on him.
If anyone is a mini-Fernandes in this league it’s probably Gibbs White.
Those journalist sound bites about him being a long-term Fernandes replacement, though… not in the slightest. He’s a certified wingfielder with a good shot on him.
If anyone is a mini-Fernandes in this league it’s probably Gibbs White.
Why do you need something different? Who have been the top players in the world in recent years? Messi, CR7, Salah - all "cut in and shoot" types. Is Cunha struggling as a "cut in and shoot type"? No. Can Cunha play every minute when United are in multiple competitions next season? No.
Title winning Liverpool only had "cut in and shoot types", did they not? Current Arsenal only have cut in and shoot types, do they not?
Goals from aerial crosses are one of the least efficient scoring methods - it's partly why modern football has moved away from it as a preferred tactic.
But additionally, modern full-backs are more athletic and able to get up the pitch a lot more than they used to - it's why they are now more utilised for width and crosses, enabling wingers/wide-forwards to rather come inside and create an additional direct goal threat which didn't used to exist so much back in the olden days when wingers were stuck further from goal by the touch-line.
Blame Luke Shaw for being hesitant to cross, or those managers who consider that goals appear statistically more likely from either cutting inside and shooting, or passing the ball closer to goal, rather than lofting in speculative high balls.
"A British study evaluating the performance development in the Premier League from the 2006/07 season to the 2012/13 season, shows that full backs have not always been delivering such impressive numbers. During this period an increase of 35% in high-intensity runs and as much as 62% in sprint distance, despite almost the same total distance run, could be measured for full backs. These values represented the largest increase of all considered positions.
The cause of this increase was seen in changes in systems and tactics, away from rigid formations and towards dynamic gameplay philosophies. Full-backs are no longer only concerned with defensive tasks by coaches but may and should become increasingly involved in the attacking efforts of their team. Be it creating majority situations, playing diagonal passes or even crosses and shots.."
https://planet.training/the-modern-day-full-back
Great, your reference point is even longer ago - 30 years in fact. Football has indeed moved on, see above.
See my point above about the role of modern-day full-backs. It ultimately increases your ability as a team to get in to goal-scoring positions if you have your wide forwards closer to goal, and hand the job of crosses to the full-back. The role of the modern full-back is to get up the pitch.
Think about it in terms of the potential output of Goals + Assists from one flank during a game, using reasonable output assumptions:
Olden days:
LW - 1 assist per match from crossing. 0 goals as they are too often stuck by the touch-line, thus further from scoring positions themselves.
LB - 0 assists per match. 0 goals. They do not have the pace and stamina to consistently get up the pitch to overlap and provide crosses.
Sum = 1 assist 0 goals per match from your left flank.
Today:
LW - 0 assists per match from crossing, 1 goal as they cut inside to get closer to goal and shoot.
LB - 1 assist per match from crossing, as in modern times they now have the pace and stamina to regularly get up the pitch on the overlap and contribute close to what old-fashioned wingers did. 0 goals.
Sum = 1 assist 1 goal per match from your left flank.
By leaving crosses/assists to the overlapping full-back, and freeing the winger/wide-forward to come inside, you overall increase the attacking potential of your flank compared to the olden days.
Having two players on the same side who have the same preferred foot and are trying to get around the outside results in a duplication of roles and a stepping on toes, and loses the additional benefits gained from the increased stamina full-backs have in the modern day.
Good argument simplifying the three best wide attackers into one comparison (all of whom are completely different attackers anyway)He just seems more of what we already have, rather than what we need.
None of the best teams favour wide attackers/wingers who play on the same side as their preferred foot and prefer to cross rather than cut inside. None of the top wide/attackers/wingers in the world are players who play on the same side as their preferred foot and prefer to cross rather than cut inside.
There's numerous reasons for that, which I have in part explained above. But somehow a few posters on here still living in 1995 think they somehow know better than what Guardiola, Klopp, Enrique and Arteta have all figured out.