[Woodywizz]

Struts around like he’s prime Souness when the reality is that he is schooled week in and week out by an 18 year old.

The sooner this pseudo hard man leaves the club, the better.

 

[DanClancy]

He's had more then a fair run at it, nowhere near good enough and hopefully sell this summer whilst his stock is high. I'd sell him now if he could with Mount & Casemiro on the way back but that is highly unlikely too happen .

I thought he'd improve in this role but if he's not scoring goals he's not contributing, so pedestrian in possession.

 

[MadDogg]

Abysmal

Do we need more words to describe him as a central midfielder? Not saying he's an abysmal player, but in our system playing as an 8, or simply as a CM in general, he really is atrocious - one of the worst midfielders in the league in that position. Put further forward, he's better, but then he lacks creativity, so he doesn't suit our system.

People keep saying that, but personally I really don't think it's the case.

He becomes more of a goal threat in this position, sure. But other than that, the rest of his game gets even worse. Take out his goals and he hasn't had a single good game in that position this season. His best period of form where most people were agreeing that he was starting to look a bit better was a couple of months ago when he had a few games playing a bit deeper again (either from the start or a formation change pushed him there in the second half). His best periods of form throughout his career were a few months on either side of the 2019 off-season when he was playing as an 8, the first month under Rangnick and then the first month under ETH (both of which he was playing as a 6 in a two man midfield). Is he good enough in those positions? Hell no. But at least in that two man midfield he at least kind-of somewhat does the basics and can have the odd actual good game. Push him further forward and all his weaknesses become even worse as he basically just drifts around doing nothing but trying to score goals.

Maybe it'd be different if he was playing as the 10# ahead of two deeper midfielders. Unlikely but I won't write it off without seeing it.

 

[MadDogg]

We are overrun in midfield because we start Bruno as an AM. He doesn't have a fixed position. With Bruno starting we need two CM who stay central to stop counters and help with defensive duties if we loss possession. McTominay is meant to be playing CM but he's too far up the pitch as well. We can't play both Bruno and McTominay in midfield, otherwise we are left with Mainoo trying to defend against 2/3 midfielders. This is why we are constantly overrun in the Premier League. McTominay is never going to start ahead of Bruno so he shouldn't start at all.

No he's not. It is a very obvious tactical decision from ETH that he wants two attacking midfielders playing ahead of a single pivot. Scott has spent his entire career before this season playing as a CM (either as an 8 or a 6), so it's not like he's just suddenly decided to play a much more attacking position for himself.

Now, and this is where I've had disagreements with a few here, that doesn't mean that the person in that attacking position (whether it's McTominay, Mount or anyone else) should be doing so little to help out the single pivot. The entire formation only works if the single pivot is getting a lot of help from all directions, both from behind him with the defenders and fullbacks stepping in to provide extra numbers, and from ahead of him with the attacking players moving in and out of positions to receive the ball and have quick interplay to move the ball around. Bruno largely does that (as seen by him normally getting on the ball about twice as often), but Scott does not. Our second attacking midfielder needs to be doing similar, not largely vacating the midfield entirely.

 

[MadDogg]

What do you mean by "McTominay is meant to be playing CM"? You mean this is where you would have played him if I understand correctly? If that's the case then I agree, I just pointed out this system is designed FOR McTominay BY Ten Hag. It really doesn't suit ANY other player, ESPECIALLY Bruno. But this is the best position/role for McTominay, make no mistake about that. It's just at the same time detrimental for the team in general.

We started the season playing the exact same system but with Mount in that position instead of Scott. Hannibal has also been used in that position a couple of times. Eriksen has also had some games where he's played further forward than he did last season.

We're not playing it because of McTominay. We're playing it because it's how ETH wants us to play, which in hindsight is obviously why we signed Mount in the first place.

 

[Borys]

We started the season playing the exact same system but with Mount in that position instead of Scott. Hannibal has also been used in that position a couple of times. Eriksen has also had some games where he's played further forward than he did last season.

We're not playing it because of McTominay. We're playing it because it's how ETH wants us to play, which in hindsight is obviously why we signed Mount in the first place.

That is correct, maybe I explained myself wrong so pardon me. The system is not designed for McTominay obviously, but he's the only player that benefits from it on individual level - that is because this system basically creates chaos and that's where McTominay thrives (right place right time). Mount has been shit in this role and it's a waste of his talents (I do rate him as a player).

This system is detrimental to every other player we have, starting from Mainoo, through Bruno up to Hojlund. Wingers are also asked to do more defensive work what is not ideal if your wingers are Rashford and Garnacho.

 

[Rossa]

People keep saying that, but personally I really don't think it's the case.

He becomes more of a goal threat in this position, sure. But other than that, the rest of his game gets even worse. Take out his goals and he hasn't had a single good game in that position this season. His best period of form where most people were agreeing that he was starting to look a bit better was a couple of months ago when he had a few games playing a bit deeper again (either from the start or a formation change pushed him there in the second half). His best periods of form throughout his career were a few months on either side of the 2019 off-season when he was playing as an 8, the first month under Rangnick and then the first month under ETH (both of which he was playing as a 6 in a two man midfield). Is he good enough in those positions? Hell no. But at least in that two man midfield he at least kind-of somewhat does the basics and can have the odd actual good game. Push him further forward and all his weaknesses become even worse as he basically just drifts around doing nothing but trying to score goals.

Maybe it'd be different if he was playing as the 10# ahead of two deeper midfielders. Unlikely but I won't write it off without seeing it.

I think the reason for me saying it, which may be wrong, most likely is, is that as a 10 or advanced 8, you don't expect him to get involved as much in the build-up play. He's downright atrocious when building play from the back - terrible. He hides from the ball, and his short passing is egregious (soon running out of negative adjectives to use). Further forward, he can at least wrestle a little, win some headers and score a goal or two. That being said, he's never good enough to start for United; he should only be used as a sub, and then further forward than being part of a functioning midfield.

 

[Rossa]

That is correct, maybe I explained myself wrong so pardon me. The system is not designed for McTominay obviously, but he's the only player that benefits from it on individual level - that is because this system basically creates chaos and that's where McTominay thrives (right place right time). Mount has been shit in this role and it's a waste of his talents (I do rate him as a player).

This system is detrimental to every other player we have, starting from Mainoo, through Bruno up to Hojlund. Wingers are also asked to do more defensive work what is not ideal if your wingers are Rashford and Garnacho.

McTominay is detrimental to any system that we play. He shies away from the ball. His short passing is abysmal. He doesn't track back. He doesn't find space or space for others. In the build-up phase, it's literally like playing with a man less. When defending, it's almost also like playing with a man less. So he's part of the chaos as others have to cover for him.

 

[Borys]

McTominay is detrimental to any system that we play. He shies away from the ball. His short passing is abysmal. He doesn't track back. He doesn't find space or space for others. In the build-up phase, it's literally like playing with a man less. When defending, it's almost also like playing with a man less. So he's part of the chaos as others have to cover for him.

Yes, that's why he should be the player for last 15-20' as I mentioned before. Every time he starts a game, one of the footballing gods weeps.

I'm not getting into the "McTominay is shit" discussions, that is obvious to me he should've been sold this summer, I'm just pointing out that Scott is the "go-to" option for Ten Hag every time he enters the "survival" mode, what apparently happens every 45mins (see Forest game). And he is actually following very sophisticated instructions to run into the box as often as possible. Personally I think he's having a fantastic career for such a limited footballer.

 

[gaffs]

McTominay is detrimental to any system that we play. He shies away from the ball. His short passing is abysmal. He doesn't track back. He doesn't find space or space for others. In the build-up phase, it's literally like playing with a man less. When defending, it's almost also like playing with a man less. So he's part of the chaos as others have to cover for him.

Totally agree. The fact that he is playing further forward than Bruno is a joke. Although i kind of understand it as he is useless deeper.

He needs to be sold now his stock is reasonably high.

 

[Hughes35]

A club with any sense would sell now while he has a reputation as this amazing goal scoring midfielder.

As usual though we wont and he will go in about 4 years for free or on loan.

 

[Roboc7]

He clearly is suited to that role, he consistently ends up in goal scoring positions what apparently is all that Ten Hag wants from him.

Ten Hag recognized he isn't really a midfielder, so pushed him higher up, what is a good tactic to use for the last 15-20', but terrible tactic to start the game. What do you think is McTominay most suited to if not this role he's playing for us these days?

He isn’t suited to it, it’s just a make do option which is why he was dropped as soon as Eriksen was back. People are peddling myths like he is the first name on the team sheet or all manager expects of him is such and such.

I don’t believe for one second the manager is happy with his contribution overall but he’s picked him for goals because he’s had to. The idea he is happy to see Mctominay just stand next to an opposition player when we have possession and only manage to pass the ball a dozen times in 45 minutes against League 1 opposition is pretty laughable.

 

[lex talionis]

I insist. Statistics NEVER lie. Its people who do all the time due to their personal biases. So they end up seeing what isn't there and interpreting data wrongly. So "the eye test" excuse is just a cop out for most folks to hide behind their ill conceived biases.

A proper look at statistics with in the context of a result will never have anyone confusing a smash and grab with a controlled counter attacking victory. Unless the intepteter has deep set biases.

Case in point the last 2 pages in this thread. If one went by "eye test" alone, they'd conclude not only did Mctominay NEVER touch the ball (a.k.a hid from it), every time he did he controlled it badly and ceeded possesion to the opposition (a.k.a footballing black hole) , contributed nothing ( no tackles, no interceptions, no key passes) apart from running forward to wantonly miss chances whilst simultaneously passing the ball once every 3 minutes (remember, the self same ball he hid from, couldn't control and passed out or to opponents EVERY time he touched it.)

We are all from time to time prone to such blatant biases

Statistics never lie?

Relying solely on statistics to understand phenomena involving human beings in competition is delusional.

Every phenomenon we observe -- McTominay touching a football over a 90+ minute match -- is replete with quantitative judgments about the context in which McTominay performs his task every time he touches the ball. Some touches are simple and some are complex, judgments which are subjective in nature. We can easily establish a quantity associated with those two touches with the number "2", but the nature of those two touches may differ widely in their "value", for lack of a better term. Statisticians understand this and thus have come up with a variety of metrics to further refine our understanding of those two touches and that is helpful to our understanding, but that help is still very limited.

Let's put it this way. If all I gave you was a stats sheet of a match (possession, shots on target, xG...you name it), a sheet of stats developed by the greatest statisticians the world has ever seen, but I told you that you were not allowed to watch the game itself, you would have a far less comprehensive grasp of what actually happened than if you had watched the game itself and were deprived of review the same stats sheet. Surely you don't deny this, do you?

 

[Borys]

He isn’t suited to it, it’s just a make do option which is why he was dropped as soon as Eriksen was back. People are peddling myths like he is the first name on the team sheet or all manager expects of him is such and such.

I don’t believe for one second the manager is happy with his contribution overall but he’s picked him for goals because he’s had to. The idea he is happy to see Mctominay just stand next to an opposition player when we have possession and only manage to pass the ball a dozen times in 45 minutes against League 1 opposition is pretty laughable.

Let's see then
McTominay starts:
vs Burnley - Amrabat and Casemiro on the bench
vs Sheffield - Mount and Eriksen on the bench
vs Copenhaged - Mount and Eriksen on the bench
vs City - Mount on the bench
vs Fulham - Amrabat and Mount on the bench
vs Copenhagen - Amrabat and Mount on the bench
vs Luton - Amrabat and Mount on the bench
vs Everton - Amrabat on the bench
vs Newcastle - Amrabat on the bench
vs West Ham - Amrabat and Eriksen on the bench
subbing Mainoo for McTominay after 45' against Forest is the icing on the cake

He's been consistently picked ahead of other "midfield" (he doesn't really play in midfield) options because he suits how Ten Hag wants to play.

 

[Roboc7]

Let's see then
McTominay starts:
vs Burnley - Amrabat and Casemiro on the bench
vs Sheffield - Mount and Eriksen on the bench
vs Copenhaged - Mount and Eriksen on the bench
vs City - Mount on the bench
vs Fulham - Amrabat and Mount on the bench
vs Copenhagen - Amrabat and Mount on the bench
vs Luton - Amrabat and Mount on the bench
vs Everton - Amrabat on the bench
vs Newcastle - Amrabat on the bench
vs West Ham - Amrabat and Eriksen on the bench
subbing Mainoo for McTominay after 45' against Forest is the icing on the cake

He's been consistently picked ahead of other "midfield" (he doesn't really play in midfield) options because he suits how Ten Hag wants to play.

So he’s consistently been picked ahead of Amrabat is what you are saying when he is ‘first name on the team sheet (and players who are unfit/returning from injury). There are also lots of games he hasn’t started despite him being the first name on the team sheet.

As soon as Erisken was fit the first name on the team sheet was benched, despite him apparently being suited to the manager’s style and following all his instructions. Like I said it’s just peddling myths.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Statistics never lie?

Yes. Never ever. It's the people who interprete the raw data into information who always lie.

Relying solely on statistics to understand phenomena involving human beings in competition is delusional.

Obviously. Self same way relying on the eye test alone is equally delusional.

Every phenomenon we observe -- McTominay touching a football over a 90+ minute match -- is replete with quantitative judgments about the context in which McTominay performs his task every time he touches the ball. Some touches are simple and some are complex, judgments which are subjective in nature. We can easily establish a quantity associated with those two touches with the number "2", but the nature of those two touches may differ widely in their "value", for lack of a better term. Statisticians understand this and thus have come up with a variety of metrics to further refine our understanding of those two touches and that is helpful to our understanding, but that help is still very limited.

This is correct. But still doesn,'t change my central point. People due to their biases often tend to see things that are not there with their eyes. Which gets even worse when it comes to statistics.

Let's put it this way. If all I gave you was a stats sheet of a match (possession, shots on target, xG...you name it), a sheet of stats developed by the greatest statisticians the world has ever seen, but I told you that you were not allowed to watch the game itself, you would have a far less comprehensive grasp of what actually happened than if you had watched the game itself and were deprived of review the same stats sheet. Surely you don't deny this, do you?

Ofcourse, I would have a far less comprehensive grasp. But there is NO way if I interpreted the data accurately that I'd come up with anything someone never saw with their eyes in the match. Which is my point. Statistics don't lie. It's people who do.

Matches are analysed best by a marriage of the eyes and statistics. That is why even with scouting players. Data can never be a substitute for the eye test and vice versa. That is why I'm often laughing in this thread at people making up stuff they've "claimed to have seen with their eyes" thanks to their inherrent biases against the type of player Mctominay is, every time he plays for us.

 

[lex talionis]

Yes. Never ever. It's the people who interprete the raw data into information who always lie.


Obviously. Self same way relying on the eye test alone is equally delusional.



This is correct. But still doesn,'t change my central point. People due to their biases often tend to see things that are not there with their eyes. Which gets even worse when it comes to statistics.


Ofcourse, I would have a far less comprehensive grasp. But there is NO way if I interpreted the data accurately that I'd come up with anything someone never saw with their eyes in the match. Which is my point. Statistics don't lie. It's people who do.

Matches are analysed best by a marriage of the eyes and statistics. That is why even with scouting players. Data can never be a substitute for the eye test and vice versa. That is why I'm often laughing in this thread at people making up stuff they've "claimed to have seen with their eyes" thanks to their inherrent biases against the type of player Mctominay is, every time he plays for us.

Staggering.

Statistics can be used to mislead the reader of the statistics into a believing a falsehood as true and truth as a falsehood. At the end of the day we have to decide for ourselves what is true, and although it is true that what is true is independent of whether we believe it to be true, it is also true that our ability to comprehend truth is not limited to statistical data tell us. Statistics, at least in a field as inherently human as sporting competition, can only be understood in the context in which which the activity understood is grasped comprehensively. Let me give you an example. If Scott McTominay, a midfielder, were to have passed the ball over 90 minutes only 5 times one could reasonably conclude that he had a poor game, if all you did was look at the stats and nothing more. After all, everything goes through the midfield and if a midfielder only passed the ball 5 times over 90 minutes it would be hard to deny the conclusion that he had a poor game. But on what basis could we come to this conclusion? Because of the context of what is expected of a midfielder based on our observation of football over the ages. But then again, what if the game plan for the side McTominay played for was defending deep and hitting on the counter? All of a sudden his 5 passes doesn't look quite as horrific as a midfielder playing for prime Barcelona, who would be expected to make 50 or 60 passes while dominating the other side with 70/30 possession of the ball. And what if one of these passes for the low block side led to a goal? Not even an assist, but a key pass from midfield to a winger who then found the striker on the counter. All of a sudden one would have to revise their assessment of a poor performance to a potentially brilliant performance.

That hypothetical 5 pass game by the midfielder can only be understood as a poor or brilliant performance in the context in which the game plan was designed and executed. Only your eye can see whether the low block side was overrun by the vastly better side or whether it intentionally sat back to take the pressure and only countered late in the game to win the game, as the manager had planned all along. When you see a possession stat that shows 70/30 and nothing else you just don't have enough information to determine which side was the better side. One side had 70% percent possession, but the side that had 30% may have in fact controlled the game, and if so, deserved the win that it got, notwithstanding the fact that the other side had 70% of the possession-- possession all for naught.

The object of the game is to win the game, not to dominate statistics.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Staggering.

Statistics can be used to mislead the reader of the statistics into a believing a falsehood as true and truth as a falsehood.

Exactly! Used by whom? The intepreter. You are simply emphasizing my point further. Statistics have to be misused to deceive a reader. Statistics on their own can't EVER deceive the person reading them.

At the end of the day we have to decide for ourselves what is true, and although it is true that what is true is independent of whether we believe it to be true, it is also true that our ability to comprehend truth is not limited to statistical data tell us. Statistics, at least in a field as inherently human as sporting competition, can only be understood in the context in which which the activity understood is grasped comprehensively.

We already agree on that.

Let me give you an example. If Scott McTominay, a midfielder, were to have passed the ball over 90 minutes only 5 times one could reasonably conclude that he had a poor game, if all you did was look at the stats and nothing more. After all, everything goes through the midfield and if a midfielder only passed the ball 5 times over 90 minutes it would be hard to deny the conclusion that he had a poor game. But on what basis could we come to this conclusion? Because of the context of what is expected of a midfielder based on our observation of football over the ages. But then again, what if the game plan for the side McTominay played for was defending deep and hitting on the counter? All of a sudden his 5 passes doesn't look quite as horrific as a midfielder playing for prime Barcelona, who would be expected to make 50 or 60 passes while dominating the other side with 70/30 possession of the ball. And what if one of these passes for the low block side led to a goal? Not even an assist, but a key pass from midfield to a winger who then found the striker on the counter. All of a sudden one would have to revise their assessment of a poor performance to a potentially brilliant performance.

You are still emphasizing my stance further.

This is why I told you earlier underlying statistics DON'T lie. If you look at statistics in their proper context you can comfortably separate a smash and grab win from a brilliant rope a dope, soak up pressure and hit with deadly precesion in transition win.

Same way you can tell with proper context whether a player is playing badly or is playing a certain way due to deliberate tactical instruction.


The issue is NEVER data (statistics). Its always how it is interpreted, why and by whom.

That hypothetical 5 pass game by the midfielder can only be understood as a poor or brilliant performance in the context in which the game plan was designed and executed. Only your eye can see whether the low block side was overrun by the vastly better side or whether it intentionally sat back to take the pressure and only countered late in the game to win the game, as the manager had planned all along. When you see a possession stat that shows 70/30 and nothing else you just don't have enough information to determine which side was the better side. One side had 70% percent possession, but the side that had 30% may have in fact controlled the game, and if so, deserved the win that it got, notwithstanding the fact that the other side had 70% of the possession-- possession all for naught.

The object of the game is to win the game, not to dominate statistics.

Yes. The object of a game is always to win. However winning 9/10 times is achieved through key indicators of good performance which ALWAYS show up in the overall (a.k.a "underlying" ) statistics. No matter the tactics employed. That is why a team can have far less of the ball than you, less shots at goal than you YET still wipe the floor with you in key performance statistics like shots on target, duels won, interceptions, blocks, key passes, XG for example.

Exceptions like smash and grabs NEVER disprove the rules.

 

[lex talionis]

Yes. The object of a game is always to win. However winning 9/10 times is achieved through key indicators of good performance which ALWAYS show up in the overall (a.k.a "underlying" ) statistics. No matter the tactics employed. That is why a team can have far less of the ball than you, less shots at goal than you YET still wipe the floor with you in key performance statistics like shots on target, duels won, interceptions, blocks, key passes, XG for example.

Exceptions like smash and grabs NEVER disprove the rules.

The rest was rubbish so I'll focus on these points.

Winning the stats war on such stats as shots on target and possession do not predict with 90% certainty who won the game. We'd have to go back over tens of thousands of games to determine what that percentage is but let's think about what we means when we say winning the KPIs war predicts with 90% certainty who actually wins games. It actually means nothing. Take for example "shots on target", which sounds like an impressive stat, but two shots "on target" can mean very different things -- a squibber that rolls gently into the keeper's gloves can be a shot on target as can a Juan Mata v David De Gea postage stamp special. They are both "shots on goal" but are two very different shots. And what about "possession"? One side can dominate possession in the middle third while the other side creates the good chances on goal. One side can have 25 corner kicks and squander all of them while the other can have 2 corner kicks and make something real out of those two chances.

"Blocks" you say? Say Dalot took a shot from 25 yards three times out but each of his shots was blocked, but an opposing player took two shots on goal inside the six yard box and both of his shots were blocked. Those two stats tell you very different stories.

The problem with your theory is you assign objective value to what is inherently a very subjective assessment of the phenomenon you assign to the same "objective" category. Say Dave makes a postage stamp save on Juan Mata (when he was playing for Chelsea) or Coentrao and then say Onana makes a nice save on that Wigan player yesterday early in the game. They're all saves, but the Onana save is what you'd expect any keeper at this level to make but the two Dave saves were on a completely different planet. But they're all saves.

And what of "duels won"? Not all duels are created equal. Not all key passes are created equal. And who decides what a "key pass" is anyway? An observer of objective, honest intent can see a pass as being a key pass in one game but not in another game. Or two different stats keepers in two different games...they can all see a key pass differently. That squibber into the loving arms of the keeper...was that really a save? Depends on what you believe a "save" is? If it's the kind of ball that your grandma could have saved is it really a save? Maybe...after all, if the keeper, or your grandma, had not bent down to collect the ball it would have rolled into the back of the net for a goal. Thus, it's a save, but such an intervention be in any way included in the same category as the kind of intervention that requires an extremely high level of proficiency? If so, and we put the squibber into the same category as the Juan Mata free kick on David De Gea circa 2012 (?) then the word "save" has no real meaning, at least for our purposes of understanding what transpired during the game.

 

[Trequarista10]

People keep saying that, but personally I really don't think it's the case.

He becomes more of a goal threat in this position, sure. But other than that, the rest of his game gets even worse. Take out his goals and he hasn't had a single good game in that position this season. His best period of form where most people were agreeing that he was starting to look a bit better was a couple of months ago when he had a few games playing a bit deeper again (either from the start or a formation change pushed him there in the second half). His best periods of form throughout his career were a few months on either side of the 2019 off-season when he was playing as an 8, the first month under Rangnick and then the first month under ETH (both of which he was playing as a 6 in a two man midfield). Is he good enough in those positions? Hell no. But at least in that two man midfield he at least kind-of somewhat does the basics and can have the odd actual good game. Push him further forward and all his weaknesses become even worse as he basically just drifts around doing nothing but trying to score goals.

Maybe it'd be different if he was playing as the 10# ahead of two deeper midfielders. Unlikely but I won't write it off without seeing it.

I agree, giving him the attacking #8 role means he further negates to do the basics and focuses almost solely on grabbing a goal. It's just giving him a free license to hide most of the time waiting for an opportunity to burst into the box.

He did play pretty much as a #10 vs Liverpool. It was a tough game so can't be too critical, but he was surprisingly weak when receiving the ball with back to goal, or when he did physically manage to hold off the defence he didnt have the awareness/technique to keep possession. If he could hold up the ball effectively he'd be a decent striker/second striker, but he can't.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

The rest was rubbish so I'll focus on these points.[/ Quote] Thats rich coming from a person yet to head any where with his replies to this topic about statistics

We'd have to go back over tens of thousands of games to determine what that percentage is but let's think about what we means when we say winning the KPIs war predicts with 90% certainty who actually wins games. It actually means nothing. Take for example "shots on target", which sounds like an impressive stat, but two shots "on target" can mean very different things -- a squibber that rolls gently into the keeper's gloves can be a shot on target as can a Juan Mata v David De Gea postage stamp special. They are both "shots on goal" but are two very different shots. And what about "possession"? One side can dominate possession in the middle third while the other side creates the good chances on goal. One side can have 25 corner kicks and squander all of them while the other can have 2 corner kicks and make something real out of those two chances.

"Blocks" you say? Say Dalot took a shot from 25 yards three times out but each of his shots was blocked, but an opposing player took two shots on goal inside the six yard box and both of his shots were blocked. Those two stats tell you very different stories.

You are literally repeating the same irrelvant things repeatedly at me because you have this idiotic idea, that lodged in your head that I believe raw data statistics hold ANY relevance with out any context. For the last time: They don't. "Shots on target' for example is given context by statistics like XG., which is the probablity of a given scoring opportunity resulting in a goal. Thus, if you are interpreting statistics properly, that's how bad shots are seperated from good ones, for staut given starters. They don't just merely lump everything together and label them 'statistics" just to tally off given occurances in a game without any meaning nor context to them, like you are laughqbly paitning them out to be.

The problem with your theory is you assign objective value to what is inherently a very subjective assessment of the phenomenon you assign to the same "objective" category.

No. Thats YOUR theory. I highly suspect because you have the even more inane idea that everything that occurs on a football pitch is subjective in nature. Otherwise you wouldn't be caught dead stating something so stupid. But given you stated belief is literally " numbers lie". I shouldn't be surprised. I will now leave you to your beliefs.

 

[jem]

I keep hearing that we'd be in trouble without his goals this year but who knows how well we might've played in those games in which he started and was absolutely invisible. Another example of why stats only tell a partial story.

 

[Rozay]

Given that we are one of the top clubs in the game, any player in the team primarily or even solely to score goals needs to be scoring a minimum of 20 of them in a season. It’s quite simple maths to me.

If you cannot be a 20 goal player, then we need to start moving the conversation towards the other qualities you bring. If you are a striker or second striker and you can’t score 20 goals, you would need to justify your 11 goals by being a great link player and key to enabling others to score more goals. Otherwise you’re just a striker who scores 11 goals which is not good enough for Manchester United.

If you are a midfielder who can score goals, but those goals only add up to 7 or 8, you can only possibly justify your continued selection on the basis that aside from those 7 or 8 goals, you have a consistent positive contribution to the performance of the team. Usually they can, as any midfielder with enough talent to score 8 goals a season at the top level can usually do the football basics to an at least average level.

If you are a defender with a great free-kick that can score 4 goals a season, for you to play 38 games a season, you need to justify your selection with a contribution outside of those 4 goals. Because it’s only 4 goals.

Scott McTominay seems to be allowed to play weekly solely based on a goals contribution that will likely not amount to more than 10 in a season, with no obvious value added to the team other than that (and a very arguable detriment). This, amongst many other things, reflects terribly on a manager who seems to have no plan at all presently.

 

[massey]

Just see paqueta is out for 2 months possibly we better be getting on that blower to west ham now.

 

[OL29]

Greedy and brainless. A dangerous combination.

 

[#07]

He is what he is. Had a purple patch, which we've got the most of. Now, seemingly, back to normal.

 

[Walters_19_MuFc]

We were much better when he came on for Eriksen. Had a couple of good chances. Should have scored the header.

 

[Bobski]

Should have done much better with the header, have no issues with him taking the shot earlier, good position, he strikes it well, should always be looking to shoot.

Did well on corners, made as many tackles as Mainoo and Eriksen combined, pressed well, generally did ok, but because he is McT it will be 95% hyperbolic negativity.

 

[Ekeke]

I think he was a tiny bit better than Eriksen today, but if your only real asset as a midfielder is goals and you have the gamewinning chance on a plate you have to score.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

When the chance to win a game falls to him, you deserve to lose.

 

[thepolice123]

What's the point of giving him the license to go forward when he can't even get chances like that one at the end on target? Not to mention, his glory hunting shots that usually go nowhere.

It's so infuriating.

 

[Castia]

I dread him playing for the club he’s fecking terrible

 

[PlayerOne]

Useless player. Somehow manages to bang in some random goals and gets to play game after game because of it. So sick of seeing him in the team

 

[Sylar]

His goals V Brentford were a good moment but ultimately been a bad thing as the manager keeps using him so much.

 

[90 + 5min]

Team got lot better with him instead of Eriksen. Got more compact and didn't allow Tottenham to much. Good sub. Should have scored.

 

[lex talionis]

Horrendous. He’s on for one reason and he fukks up a glorious chance.

Does he even working on his aerial game in training? Doubtful.

 

[Stadjer]

If you are a midfielder that offers nothing else besides goals you really cant miss chances like that last minute chance. The team gives up so much of potential midfield control just so McT can score but if he doesnt score than there is nothing left at all.

 

[JoaquinJoaquin]

It’s ok because Ten Hag’s reliance on him will see him out of the job soon, much like it was the others.

 

[Remember the geese]

Stop playing him. Useless player.

 

[Superunknown]

The one thing I can say about him is that he exists. I'm not sure what he really does, but...here's there. He's somebody to throw on. The definition of beige, but a blander and more useless and inoffensive variety of it. The Pigeon Detectives of football.