I was going to create a thread like this, but I don't like starting threads. So thanks for doing the work OP.
While the idea would make it easier to fit van de Beek into the team, that is not the main reason we should try it (at least as an alternative gameplan). As others have said, he is not guaranteed to be a starter.
Pogba's most reliable contribution in his time at United, in my opinion, has been his passing from deep. Despite the criticisms he has justifiably faced, he has often been the team's sole source of momentum in games when we have struggled to shift play to the final third. This has been less true since Fernandes' arrival. Nevertheless, I think his playmaking will always be more consistent and useful than his dribbling (a potent threat, but he is liable to carelessly lose possession in dangerous areas) and shooting (a rather latent threat, although we know it is in his locker).
Other than his tendency to be dispossessed, his defensive contribution has also left something to be desired. This is not withstanding that, technically and physically speaking, he is a decent tackler of the ball and has the agility to keep up with his opponent when he is in position. Despite this, he is too frequently on the wrong side of his man during defensive transitions, and his recovery runs are lacklustre. This has exposed our defence even when he is paired with a more defensive-minded partner.
Part of this is down to a perceived lack of appetite for doing the dirty work, whether because of an "attitude problem" or a "talisman's right" belief; part of this is down to the notion that getting caught out of position is part of being a box-to-box player. I am inclined to think that the former perception is false (at least since Mourinho's departure). In any event, there is not much to be done about it even if that is not the case. However, we can re-evaluate whether the box-to-box role brings out the best in our (at time of writing) record signing.
The idea of this switch is that fielding Pogba as the deepest-lying midfielder in an inverted triangle would maximise his playmaking ability at an acceptable cost that some aspects of his game be blunted.
In attack, his role is to transition the ball forward as quickly as possible. That means avoiding dwelling on the ball and venturing forward with it. After that, maintain enough distance from the final third and be prepared to quickly switch play or pose a longshot threat that forces opposition to close down and reassess their shape. We should see an increased tempo with the ball spending more time in dangerous areas if he is played right and can adopt a use-it-or-lose-it mentality, especially against compact oppositions.
In defence, his role is to use his physical presence to slow down counters and direct play to the flanks (preferably the right). Possibly, he can also cover for Maguire when the latter steps up for aerial challenges. Counter-intuitively, withholding his positioning actually places less defensive burden on him, by shifting the ball-winning duties to the advanced pair of midfielders, similar to midfields that featured Pirlo in his later seasons.
The key is discipline. We cannot (and should never) entirely extinguish Pogba's creative freedom. What I am hoping is that he can limit his risk-taking to when 10/10 opportunities arise.
Unlike a lot of posters, I think Pogba would be a beneficiary rather than a liability under the tactical switch. However, inverting the midfield would affect other players too, if not the entire style of play, for better or worse. Having two advanced midfielders supported by an anchor (albeit a non-defensive one) almost forces the team to press hard and press early. While most elite teams today favour an intense pressing game, we are not yet there tactically. If we try this against excellent technical sides we will be exposed. But most of our opponents are not excellent technical sides.
Another drawback is Fernandes' positioning. While van de Beek is reportedly a natural in the 8/10 hybrid role (I think Fred is better suited to this more advanced role too), Bruno has exclusively played in the hole since joining United (he had occasionally played a more withdrawn role in Portugal). Defensively he should be solid, as he has excellent workrate (for a pressing team; he will be exposed if asked to sit back and absorb pressure). Offensively, however, he would certainly have less space in which to operate, and withholding him from the final third would take a toll on his goal/assist numbers (not that these reflect the full extent of his contributions). Playing one key player out of position just so we can play another key player out of position sounds like a terrible idea at face value.
Nevertheless, I think Fernandes' ability to find and operate in small pockets of space allows him to be effective enough in this role to justify the change. It would also allow him to be even more involved in the buildup. The space he vacates might encourage whoever is playing upfront (ideally Martial; his linkup play is underrated) to drop deeper, which would somewhat justify fielding two wide players that both cut inside. Last season, with two inside-forwards and a no. 10, the final third was often overcrowded, making it easy for opponents to defend deep and narrow.
Overall though, it would be pretty dishonest to argue that Fernandes would not be any less effective in a hybrid role. But there is a a case for the trade-off of utilising Pogba in a way that speeds up transitions from the back and switches across the field, as well as a relatively balanced shape - more width than a diamond - of fielding a technically proficient front six. Pogba might be no Pirlo, but I think he is still a better Pirlo than a Pogba.
