Thoughts on the three tier transfer strategy?

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
37,410
Saw the below article from James Ducker referring to the approach we've taken:



Generally, what are your thoughts on the unsual approach we've taken of rebuilding attack one summer, midfield the next, and defence in the third? What are the pros/cons of doing it that way? What do you think led us to take that approach? And why don't other teams typically approach rebuilds that way?
 
More like Free Tier transfer strategy cause they are stingy. Jimmy never paid for his WinRar, not a single cent of donation.

Its not really a strategy, no? Just prioritization and cashflow management.
 
Stinks of a brief that and I don't buy it. They've failed this window no matter how it is sugar coated. We overhauled the attackers last season but also bought a keeper because we didn't have a competent one. With this same logic we should have bought a natural LB for the long overdue spell out for Shaw. The cycle continues when we then need some new forwards and all the years that pass we languish and cement our place as a club with ambitions of top 4.

Have any other clubs done a three tiered / three year rebuild or do they just buy what they need when they need it like normal people? INEPT.
 
sullydnl said:
Saw the below article from James Ducker referring to the approach we've taken:



Generally, what are your thoughts on the unsual approach we've taken of rebuilding attack one summer, midfield the next, and defence in the third? What are the pros/cons of doing it that way? What do you think led us to take that approach? And why don't other teams typically approach rebuilds that way?
Click to expand...


It was the correct approach imo. We scored 44 goals the previous year and badly needed a massive upgrade in attack, which we got (although it hasn't yet resulted in the amount of goals it may one day yield).

CM was the obvious gaping whole this year, and its been addressed.

Defense will be the next big area to address next summer.
 
I think that like most things in life it's fine within moderation.

Last summer it was better because we stuck to revamping the attack but also didn't entirely ignore the other squad needs to get us through the season when we needed a keeper.

We obviously should have been more flexible this summer and found an option at left back. Not going to turn this into another thread bemoaning not signing a left back but that ties into my view of it.

Either way whatever methodology of recruitment you take will ultimately be judged based on whether the players you sign are a success. I think last summer was a big success and I believe the ones we did bring in this summer will also succeed ultimately. If we scrape a CL spot then ultimately we are moving in a good direction.

(Hopefully De Ligt and Yoro/Heaven smash it this season and Dorgu or Amass establish themselves as a class left back and then we can make some really exciting luxury signings next summer!)
 
It makes no sense to do it in this manner. Nothing was stopping them from signing a LB. It's just a made up rule they inflicted on themselves.
 
About as smart as buying one good Tyre at a time.

A shallow narrative designed to shield the club hierarchy from criticism.
 
sullydnl said:
Saw the below article from James Ducker referring to the approach we've taken:



Generally, what are your thoughts on the unsual approach we've taken of rebuilding attack one summer, midfield the next, and defence in the third? What are the pros/cons of doing it that way? What do you think led us to take that approach? And why don't other teams typically approach rebuilds that way?
Click to expand...


Wrong approach in my opinion.

By the time they fix the defence the attackers needs refreshing and it's a never ending story all over again.

You plug each line and hope you can maintain or climb up a position, while at the same time trade up and bolster your squad with loans and promote youth as cover

We wont need half the names we bought if we have a steady back up from academy. The way fergie used to do. A Gary Neville or John Oshea meant we dont have to spent 30-50m for one position cover.

Off course we have to actually make the right signing at the end of the day. Doesnt matter what our strategy is if we keep buying the Sancho and the De Beek we will have more holes in our squad and in our pocket.

We're not equipped to win the title, or even challenge for one. Play the numbers game and build solid incrementally.

In addition a manager who employs a steady formation, call it United blueprint for the next 10 years. Say 4231, even if manager get sacked the 4231 stays and the next manager should play the same formation. How they approach and minor tweaks is ok but no more changing major formation. This fecks us up in the long run with the LVG and the ETH overhaul

Our backup need not be Gary Neville calibre. A single position played adequately is good enough as cover

Fans needs to be more ruthless, no more giving players season after season to prove themselves. You have 12 months and that's it. Should be more than enough to show your worth
 
I'm pretty sure this was not our approach considering we were heavily in for a LB. This is just trying to save face.
 
I'd say its made up bullshit. They've gone out and bought and bunch of players and have decided its a clever, intentional strategy after the fact.
The truth is different areas of the pitch have fallen into desperate state of disrepair each season and they've had no choice but to invest all their budget in one area of the pitch.
We had about 2 defenders a couple of years ago. We had about a dozen goals total across our frontline the following season (and about 3 forwards who had effectively been exiled from the club). This season we had one senior midfielder.
Putting yourelf in that position is stupid and inadequate, you cant pass it off as a genius 'plan' and expect anyone to buy that.
 
I think most rational fans knew we could not buy 3 midfielders and an entire new back 4 in one summer.

However, when you have one first team left back in the entire squad, and said left back is old, washed and injury prone, it's completely unacceptable to ignore it.
 
I get that we wanted Lewis Hall, and probably will get him next season. I get that we don't want to spend £40-50 million on a left-back who will be fighting with Shaw this season and be 2nd choice to Hall next summer (now assuming United get Hall) - what I don't get is that we during an entire season can't find one good (not great) left-back on loan or cheap who can work as cover.

I assume the logic is that we have 3-4 players who can fill in for Shaw in the odd match - like Mazraoui, like Yoro, like Dalot, like Dorgu - and that will work in the odd game to rest Shaw if his injury-record were similar to Bruno's. But if Shaw were to be injured for 5-6 weeks - which he tends to get...it will be a problem. We better hope we can survive until january and that they have a plan to get in a defender then...but I am not sure they do
 
caid said:
I'd say its made up bullshit. They've gone out and bought and bunch of players and have decided its a clever, intentional strategy after the fact.
The truth is different areas of the pitch have fallen into desperate state of disrepair each season and they've had no choice but to invest all their budget in one area of the pitch.
We had about 2 defenders a couple of years ago. We had about a dozen goals total across our frontline the following season (and about 3 forwards who had effectively been exiled from the club). This season we had one senior midfielder.
Putting yourelf in that position is stupid and inadequate, you cant pass it off as a genius 'plan' and expect anyone to buy that.
Click to expand...

Ineos didn’t put us in that position though?

It’s pretty clear they absolutely did prioritise attack last season, and midfield this Summer. Nothing ”after that fact” about it.
 
Sky1981 said:
Wrong approach in my opinion.

By the time they fix the defence the attackers needs refreshing and it's a never ending story all over again.
Click to expand...
Mbuemo will be 28 next year
Sesko will be 24
Cunha will be 28
Dorgu will be 22
Amad will be 25
Rashford will be 29 but for psr imagine he will go considering we eat some of the wages (if transfer value isn’t effected so much when a team eats the wage

Bruno at 32 is the oldest but no, we won’t need to overhaul our attack next year.
 
Absolutely love the approach. Maybe I am minority but if money available limited us to buy Baleba instead of a LB, I actually prefer that. It reduces pressure on these players to immediately come in and perform. And the value of having a position fixed can't be understated as it elevates others also if they know they can depend on having competent CMs (for example) in all games.
 
I’d also add that I think people are being extremely premature and harsh with their judgement.
Last season it clearly worked as we moved from 15th -> 3rd.
Whoever scouted Lammens deserves a big shout out here for that.
I was a big Cas fan, but it’s hard to argue we haven’t seriously improved on our midfield from last season, although only time will tell as to how good a job they have done with this.
 
I'm not sure whether it's a "strategy" or all we're capable of doing. Both financially and physically... We've never been very good at multiple deals at one time, so wouldn't surprise me if that also includes areas of the pitch.

I just can't help but think Jason Wilcox isn't the sharpest tool in the box, so that also goes to my thinking.

Also the club don't really deserve much, if any, credit for signing a GK last summer. First game of the season we had Bayindir in goal with the expectation of Onana being our number 1... And it was Tony Coton who recommended Lammens if I recall.
 
TheRedHearted said:
Mbuemo will be 28 next year
Sesko will be 24
Cunha will be 28
Dorgu will be 22
Amad will be 25
Rashford will be 29 but for psr imagine he will go considering we eat some of the wages (if transfer value isn’t effected so much when a team eats the wage

Bruno at 32 is the oldest but no, we won’t need to overhaul our attack next year.
Click to expand...

If they perform. That's the question.
 
sullydnl said:
Saw the below article from James Ducker referring to the approach we've taken:



Generally, what are your thoughts on the unsual approach we've taken of rebuilding attack one summer, midfield the next, and defence in the third? What are the pros/cons of doing it that way? What do you think led us to take that approach? And why don't other teams typically approach rebuilds that way?
Click to expand...

It seems very random. Like they kinda, sorta stumbled on to it last year because they needed to buy players to facilitate Amorim's approach — but then again, not really, because they also bought a new goalkeeper.

Then it didn't really work at all, so they sacked Amorim. Carrick came in and turned it around, and they somehow concluded that ‘yeah, what we did last summer worked really well, so let's call that our strategy going forward’ and here we are.

I think most teams usually don't use the approach because it's stupid and essentially tying your hands back. It is better to look at a wide range of options to strengthen your team all across the board, and take advantage of the options that appear at any given time, rather than needlessly committing to strengthening the team in only a single area. Not to mention broadcasting our intentions to everyone else, giving our counterparties a needless advantage in negotiations.
 
sullydnl said:
Saw the below article from James Ducker referring to the approach we've taken:



Generally, what are your thoughts on the unsual approach we've taken of rebuilding attack one summer, midfield the next, and defence in the third? What are the pros/cons of doing it that way? What do you think led us to take that approach? And why don't other teams typically approach rebuilds that way?
Click to expand...

I think it would be nonsensical as a strategy, if it indeed were a strategy which I don't really believe.
 
Would people be still talking about this "three tier" system if we bought a left back this summer and backup striker? I think we all agreed we needed 3 midfielders to sustain any acceptable level in many more games this season compared to last. We failed to get a LB, no two ways around it. We also tried to get rid of Zirkzee and Rashford in which case we woul've gotten an attacker in I'm sure.
So this is no news and made up theory.
 
Raoul said:
It was the correct approach imo. We scored 44 goals the previous year and badly needed a massive upgrade in attack, which we got (although it hasn't yet resulted in the amount of goals it may one day yield).

CM was the obvious gaping whole this year, and its been addressed.

Defense will be the next big area to address next summer.
Click to expand...
So what your saying is, the strategy is "plug the most gaping holes now and the other ones later".
 
It's complete made-up PR bollocks.

There are so many reasons that both the "strategy" and announcing it to the world is idiotic, that if this is genuinely their plan, they're even more incompetent than I thought.
 
They signed de ligt, mazraoui, heaven and dorgu in their first year. The defence doesn’t need a rebuild, we undoubtedly need a lb and might need a cb depending on how things play out this season.
 
i would understand if we had had a city type of window, targeting actual best in class players or those with the potential to be, but we’re not doing that. If you’re going to preach being opportunistic then you look at opportunities in all areas.

Besides, this assumes that the job is actually done transforming those areas, a dangerous thing to assume. No club consistently goes 100% on transfers. If especially the gamble on Baleba (which I think he’ll come good but regardless) turn out to be a dud and we now have no space covering 6, we just have to accept it because next year is the defense’s turn to be rebuilt?
 
Back in my days this used to be called "we sign players the way we want" and you didnt hear anyone calling it three tier bollox
 
I can see the logic of the three-tier strategy. Attack one summer, midfield the next, defence after that. In a boardroom, looking at a three-year squad plan, it probably makes perfect sense.

My concern is that football isn’t played in a board room or on a spreadsheet.

The three units don’t operate independently. If the defence leaks goals, we drop points. And when Manchester United drop points, we know the cycle — scrutiny, dressing-room stories, leaks, manager pressure and suddenly everything around the club becomes unstable.

At that point, can we really assume the attack and midfield we’ve spent heavily on will just continue developing nicely? Confidence is collective. Midfielders play differently when they don’t trust what’s behind them. Attackers start forcing things when we’re chasing games. The crowd gets nervous, the manager starts tinkering and suddenly the supposedly “completed” parts of the team aren’t functioning either.

That’s the problem with rigidly saying defence is next year’s tier. The weakest third of the team can drag down the other two.

And next summer isn’t only defence. Bruno will be 33 during 27/28 and we’ll have to start thinking seriously about replacing his influence too. That’s potentially a lot of major surgeries in one window.

I’m not advocating spending for the sake of it. But when clubs like Ipswich have outspent us, it’s difficult to believe there wasn’t a middle ground between overpaying and simply carrying obvious weaknesses for another year.

I like the architecture of the strategy. I just don’t think we can sacrifice too much of the present for it. This season needs to show we’re already becoming a very good team, with 2027 about completing it — not fixing another third of it.

If we’re genuine title contenders by the end of 27/28, the strategy will have worked. But Attack → Midfield → Defence feels much cleaner on a PowerPoint than it ever will on a football pitch.
 
This was the squad at the end of 2024-25 campaign, ranked from weakest position to strongest:
GK: Onana, Bayindir
ST: Hojlund
LW: Garnacho (Rashford was sent out on loan)
RW: Antony, Amad
CM: Casemiro, Mainoo, Ugarte, McTominay, Eriksen
LB: Shaw, Dorgu, Malacia
RB: Dalot, Mazaroui
CB: Martinez, Maguire, De Ligt, Yoro, Heaven, Evans
AM: Bruno, Mount

This speaks for itself. I don't think it was some measured three tier approach. We seem to have looked at improving the worst positions first and it fell in line that way. It's what any logical club would do. Only Amad and Mainoo out of 11 remain in the top 5 worst positions, and only Malacia and Evans, both of whom made no difference, have left in the bottom four.
 
Last edited:
Liverpool revamped their entire midfield in the summer of 23/24 by signing Gravenberch, MacAlister, Sobozoslai and Endo, and went on to win the league the following season. So, you never know!
 
Sky1981 said:
By the time they fix the defence the attackers needs refreshing and it's a never ending story all over again.
Click to expand...
Yep. We also need to seriously start our Bruno succession planning too. It’s understandable to have something as a primary focus but that shouldn’t mean you ignore gaping holes which we did in midfield last season and in defence this season.
 
It lacks foresight to signal to everyone what we plan to do. Especially when we have limited ourselves to the PL market almost exclusively.
 
Makes no sense to me, I would much rather have a strategy where the first 14-15players across the squad are top class and you compromise beyond that hoping to improve in future seasons rather than this one where you might have a great attack & top midfield but are badly compromised in defence.
 
sullydnl said:
Saw the below article from James Ducker referring to the approach we've taken:



Generally, what are your thoughts on the unsual approach we've taken of rebuilding attack one summer, midfield the next, and defence in the third? What are the pros/cons of doing it that way? What do you think led us to take that approach? And why don't other teams typically approach rebuilds that way?
Click to expand...


Regardless of the tiered approach, what level are they building towards in each tier?

Do Mbeumo, Cunha, Tielemans, Santos etc have the ceiling needed to be Champions League and Premier League winning players?

If not, do we then need to rebuild the rebuild in order to get to that level? Wasn't that supposed to be the point in the first place? And why did we pay so much for some of these players in the first place, if their ceiling was limited to begin with.

If we need to sell those players to fund the rebuild of the rebuild, what if they don't want to leave and no one wants to match their wages?
 
Last edited:
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
One of our scouts, in fact, our main GK scout, recommended a top under the radar player? Isn’t that exactly how we want this to work?
Click to expand...

Just saying - and that he was pushing for it and Wilcox etc. didn't listen until the very end of the window for whatever (dumb) reason.
 
I don't believe it for one second. Why would you limit yourself to a specific player? The transfer window is hugely dynamic and constantly changing, you have to be ready to act to get the right players no matter the position. If this is truly our plan we're hampering ourselves needlessly.
 
The thing is everyone wanted strikers last summer which featured some bang average strikers going for big money.

This summer midfielders were the thing in demand the most and the money spent in some cases was just stupid.

Next summer by that logic its bound to be defenders so every one will have to pay a premium. Plus we are going to need at least 3 first team defenders realistically. Thats an issue.

Theres also the issue of no one wanting Zirkzee, Ugarte being injured and being unable to sell Rashford so expected funds simply werent there.


That being said I reckon we will be back in for Hall in January depending how the season goes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.