Tosin Adarabioyo | Signs for Chelsea

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,662
Maguire is good enough to start as he's shown this season.
And we did good this season didn't we?

Maguire is not good enough to start or be an option for us because the style of football we have to play to accommodate his weaknesses is abysmal. The back ups have to be an extension of the style of the starters.

Makes no sense to have a team built to play a high line, squeeze the pitch, be able to defend one on one and then if there's one injury there, change our entire style.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
34,297
People getting carried away.

He wasn't even Fulhams best CB, and he only played 20x in the league last year.

Would I of took him as a back up? Yes. But this really isn't a loss.
If he wasn't a free transfer, this thread would be about 2 pages max.
 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
439
Supports
Chelsea
Even if Chalobah goes.

Fofana, Colwill, Disasi, Gilchrist, Badiashille, Sarr - will all be with you next season?
Gilchrist will go out on loan, Sarr almost certainly will be let go

So you are left with Disasi, Badiashille , Colwill and Fofana.

With the size of matchday squads and the fact you can bring on 5 subs plus the possibility of a concussion substitute you need at least 4 if not five CD and if he plans to play 3( which he has on occasions) then it’s likely you need 6
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,539
Location
Hope, We Lose
And we did good this season didn't we?

Maguire is not good enough to start or be an option for us because the style of football we have to play to accommodate his weaknesses is abysmal. The back ups have to be an extension of the style of the starters.

Makes no sense to have a team built to play a high line, squeeze the pitch, be able to defend one on one and then if there's one injury there, change our entire style.
We were shit, he was our only solid CB. He played next to CBs who were a lot worse and sometimes AWB playing out of position at leftback. Our DM was extremely weak other than Casemiro who had some overall good performances but then he would make mistakes losing the ball or with a poor challenge and ruin them.

VVD wouldnt have been great playing in the middle of that. He'd have been better than Maguire but the point is he was good overall despite poor performances from his CB partners because he was the only solid one this season.

I do understand what you are suggesting, Maguire is not the most mobile CB and on paper ideally yes you'd want more mobile CBs if they are going to be playing high up the pitch. However at some point you are going to be facing a couple of set pieces, you are going to face a spell of pressure from your opposition and thats when Maguire is good. He made a lot of interceptions for a CB taking the ball before opposition front players which is great to stop opponent pressure on the floor and he's strong in the air and clearing the ball out.

On top of that our current team and our team for the last 5 years or more is a counter attacking team. We sit deep with 2 DMs and have 50.4% of the ball including against weaker teams, and less against top half of the table teams. Our attacking players arent that good at pressing. Hojlund is better than our previous strikers and Bruno will get around trying to make challenges but our wingers arent pressing the backline, we arent setting traps to intercept in our opponent's third, we're sitting back which is what 4-2-3-1 is good for because you have 2 deep midfielders who should be able to take care of attacking players dropping between attack and midfield where defenders dont want to confront them as it leaves space in behind them.

So no our CBs arent constantly in a high line, they spend just as much time in their own box defending and thats where we spring our counter attacks from with our fast attackers.

The year before when Lisandro was always fit and playing next to Varane we had 53% of the ball. It was more than this season but still less than you seem to think. 53% would have ranked 7th in the premier league just in front of Aston Villa and Newcastle, but less than City (65.4%), Spurs (62%), Liverpool (61.3%), Brighton (60.2%), Chelsea (59%) and Arsenal (58.4%)

In an ideal world where we have an unlimited budget yes of course you'd get some mobile CBs to cover runs in behind the defence if you want to play on the front foot and press. But we'd also need new wingers and new midfielders who like to do that. Our current ones dont. We also have several worse performing CBs at the club so moving them on and replacing them with better ones is a bigger priority than getting rid of the only CB who didn't look lucky to be at the 8th best premier league club this season.

So when we have £200 million to spend on new wingers and a midfield, or lets be honest with our transfer record it would probably take £400 million, then yes getting rid of Maguire and replacing him with someone who likes a foot race in behind him as well as the front foot defending that Maguire does well intercepting the ball, and is good defending crosses too makes sense. Going to be another expensive player though on top of the other 5 players brought in who also play that way.
 

terraloo

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
439
Supports
Chelsea
I think his point is in resale value, Lets say he turns out to be not so good and you want to move him on. It's much easier to move a player on 100k a week than 150k a week. Of course you'll end up saving on the whole if its a free transfer and it turns out he's a success.

You should trust United fans on this, it's a lot harder to move on players on high salaries, we have a lot of unfortunate experience with this issue over the last 5 years and continue to do so.
I get your overall point but the fact remains that if you haven’t got to pay a fee and then depreciate ( amortise ) the fee then paying off a contract is far easier or even honouring the remaining part of the contract makes it far more acceptable
 

Nori-

Full Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
1,298
This signing would have been a no brainer. How are Chelsea able to keep spending and we are watching the pennies.

He would have cost us nothing, you put him on £100-150k a week, 4 year contract, 2-3 into the deal - you sell him and get most of what you paid him in wages back in transfer money.

The only reason I can think of him picking Chelsea is they are London based and he's settled there.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,539
Location
Hope, We Lose
This signing would have been a no brainer. How are Chelsea able to keep spending and we are watching the pennies.

He would have cost us nothing, you put him on £100-150k a week, 4 year contract, 2-3 into the deal - you sell him and get most of what you paid him in wages back in transfer money.

The only reason I can think of him picking Chelsea is they are London based and he's settled there.
Chelsea had the 12th best defensive record in the league this season so he's surely confident he'll play and if hes solid then that record should improve. So it would seem like an easy step up and easy success goals. Even if Chelsea go from 12th best defensive record to like 6th best it would be a huge success. Meanwhile I'm sure he's getting luxury wages compared to what hes used to.

Anything can happen though especially at Chelsea the past several years. They've signed plenty of players who should have done quite well and yet here they are 6th in the table and much of the season lower than that.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
13,110
This signing would have been a no brainer. How are Chelsea able to keep spending and we are watching the pennies.

He would have cost us nothing, you put him on £100-150k a week, 4 year contract, 2-3 into the deal - you sell him and get most of what you paid him in wages back in transfer money.

The only reason I can think of him picking Chelsea is they are London based and he's settled there.
It was either Chelsea or Newcastle.

I dont think we even looked at him, dont forget United can't multi task, all efforts right now is to review the manager, no transfers.
 

Valencia Shin Crosses

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2015
Messages
7,298
Location
"Martial...He's isolated Skrtel here..."
It was either Chelsea or Newcastle.

I dont think we even looked at him, dont forget United can't multi task, all efforts right now is to review the manager, no transfers.
Sad isn’t it. Apparently we have to lock everyone in a board room for 2 weeks with 0 distractions for a decision that could have been evaluated and made (either way) a month ago.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,662
We were shit, he was our only solid CB. He played next to CBs who were a lot worse and sometimes AWB playing out of position at leftback. Our DM was extremely weak other than Casemiro who had some overall good performances but then he would make mistakes losing the ball or with a poor challenge and ruin them.

VVD wouldnt have been great playing in the middle of that. He'd have been better than Maguire but the point is he was good overall despite poor performances from his CB partners because he was the only solid one this season.

I do understand what you are suggesting, Maguire is not the most mobile CB and on paper ideally yes you'd want more mobile CBs if they are going to be playing high up the pitch. However at some point you are going to be facing a couple of set pieces, you are going to face a spell of pressure from your opposition and thats when Maguire is good. He made a lot of interceptions for a CB taking the ball before opposition front players which is great to stop opponent pressure on the floor and he's strong in the air and clearing the ball out.

On top of that our current team and our team for the last 5 years or more is a counter attacking team. We sit deep with 2 DMs and have 50.4% of the ball including against weaker teams, and less against top half of the table teams. Our attacking players arent that good at pressing. Hojlund is better than our previous strikers and Bruno will get around trying to make challenges but our wingers arent pressing the backline, we arent setting traps to intercept in our opponent's third, we're sitting back which is what 4-2-3-1 is good for because you have 2 deep midfielders who should be able to take care of attacking players dropping between attack and midfield where defenders dont want to confront them as it leaves space in behind them.

So no our CBs arent constantly in a high line, they spend just as much time in their own box defending and thats where we spring our counter attacks from with our fast attackers.

The year before when Lisandro was always fit and playing next to Varane we had 53% of the ball. It was more than this season but still less than you seem to think. 53% would have ranked 7th in the premier league just in front of Aston Villa and Newcastle, but less than City (65.4%), Spurs (62%), Liverpool (61.3%), Brighton (60.2%), Chelsea (59%) and Arsenal (58.4%)

In an ideal world where we have an unlimited budget yes of course you'd get some mobile CBs to cover runs in behind the defence if you want to play on the front foot and press. But we'd also need new wingers and new midfielders who like to do that. Our current ones dont. We also have several worse performing CBs at the club so moving them on and replacing them with better ones is a bigger priority than getting rid of the only CB who didn't look lucky to be at the 8th best premier league club this season.

So when we have £200 million to spend on new wingers and a midfield, or lets be honest with our transfer record it would probably take £400 million, then yes getting rid of Maguire and replacing him with someone who likes a foot race in behind him as well as the front foot defending that Maguire does well intercepting the ball, and is good defending crosses too makes sense. Going to be another expensive player though on top of the other 5 players brought in who also play that way.
A lot of what youre saying is predicated on where we are, I'm thinking about where we want to be. Maguire is very good to excellent in the right system. The problem is, that is not a system I think we want to, or should be, playing moving forward.
 

Gandalf

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
4,895
Location
Alabama but always Wales in my heart
It was either Chelsea or Newcastle.

I dont think we even looked at him, dont forget United can't multi task, all efforts right now is to review the manager, no transfers.
I am fairly sure they can multi task and they did look at him. I am also confident that having looked at him they would have realized he makes Lindeof look like prime Vidic and that even on a free he is not worth the time of day. The amount of bed wetting going on over us not signing a below average PL player for free is utterly hilarious.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,539
Location
Hope, We Lose
A lot of what youre saying is predicated on where we are, I'm thinking about where we want to be. Maguire is very good to excellent in the right system. The problem is, that is not a system I think we want to, or should be, playing moving forward.
You can think about where we want to be forever. We've done it for 10 years. Where we are hasnt changed much
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
6,161
If he wasn't a free transfer, this thread would be about 2 pages max.
This is the type of transfer we frequently missed out on in the Woody era. Sure it's no big deal to not have this guy but given the number of areas in which we need to strengthen, I hope the alternative isn't 25M on Chalobah.
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
6,161
I do understand what you are suggesting, Maguire is not the most mobile CB and on paper ideally yes you'd want more mobile CBs if they are going to be playing high up the pitch. However at some point you are going to be facing a couple of set pieces, you are going to face a spell of pressure from your opposition and thats when Maguire is good. He made a lot of interceptions for a CB taking the ball before opposition front players which is great to stop opponent pressure on the floor and he's strong in the air and clearing the ball out.
I'm just going to complain about our squad building and recruitment for a bit because I feel like it. I generally agree that other positions are equally / more important and we can't invest all our money in CBs this window.

Much has been made of us signing left wingers (Sanchez, Sancho, Martial too in a sense) without having an actual right wing player in our squad. I think the CB recruitment has been equally bad if not worse. When was the last time we had two CBs that complemented each other? A proper stopper / sweeper type partnership of the Rio / Vidic mould? IMO the squad has too many players who want to be passive and no actual aggressive stopper types. Varane to his credit used to be the one mopping up behind Ramos but was forced to transform into something like a Ramos and did a fine job at it.

To top all of this off, we signed a player who's a relative specialist in Martinez who brings amazing playmaking ability and defensive nous but he doesn't have physicality that a CB typically needs. So we really need to account for that in whatever partnership we're building.

The way modern football has been going, we need a 3-2 structure at the back. This for me is non-negotiable for next season regardless of the coach. The way it's constructed changes depending on the coach. e.g., with Tuchel's 3-4-2-1 it's three actual center backs vs in Ten Hag's system, the LB / RB come in to make the three. Shaw has been particularly good at the role when he was available. We threw in Lindelof and AWB at LB to see if they can make that WCB position to work but both failed spectacularly at defending out wide and I can't blame them for it. And it must be the LB and not the RB that needs to make the three because we want Martinez to be the middle of the three defenders.

------------- CM ----- DM -------------------
---------- WCB --- CCB --- WCB -------

Assuming the above, who in our squad can do the roles we need each player to perform?

CCB: Martinez, Maguire, Lindelof, Evans - basically all our senior center backs.
WCB (L): Shaw?
WCB (R): Kambwala

I'm not sure how we can remove ourselves from this situation. This for me is what Rangnick meant by open heart surgery. Not that the individuals themselves are bad but the whole is a lot less than the sum of its parts.
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,662
You can think about where we want to be forever. We've done it for 10 years. Where we are hasnt changed much
You're right. We shouldn't even try to change actually. Just tell Wilcox, Berrada and Ashworth, when he comes, to keep doing what we've done for the last 11 years.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,539
Location
Hope, We Lose
I'm just going to complain about our squad building and recruitment for a bit because I feel like it. I generally agree that other positions are equally / more important and we can't invest all our money in CBs this window.

Much has been made of us signing left wingers (Sanchez, Sancho, Martial too in a sense) without having an actual right wing player in our squad. I think the CB recruitment has been equally bad if not worse. When was the last time we had two CBs that complemented each other? A proper stopper / sweeper type partnership of the Rio / Vidic mould? IMO the squad has too many players who want to be passive and no actual aggressive stopper types. Varane to his credit used to be the one mopping up behind Ramos but was forced to transform into something like a Ramos and did a fine job at it.

To top all of this off, we signed a player who's a relative specialist in Martinez who brings amazing playmaking ability and defensive nous but he doesn't have physicality that a CB typically needs. So we really need to account for that in whatever partnership we're building.

The way modern football has been going, we need a 3-2 structure at the back. This for me is non-negotiable for next season regardless of the coach. The way it's constructed changes depending on the coach. e.g., with Tuchel's 3-4-2-1 it's three actual center backs vs in Ten Hag's system, the LB / RB come in to make the three. Shaw has been particularly good at the role when he was available. We threw in Lindelof and AWB at LB to see if they can make that WCB position to work but both failed spectacularly at defending out wide and I can't blame them for it. And it must be the LB and not the RB that needs to make the three because we want Martinez to be the middle of the three defenders.

------------- CM ----- DM -------------------
---------- WCB --- CCB --- WCB -------

Assuming the above, who in our squad can do the roles we need each player to perform?

CCB: Martinez, Maguire, Lindelof, Evans - basically all our senior center backs.
WCB (L): Shaw?
WCB (R): Kambwala

I'm not sure how we can remove ourselves from this situation. This for me is what Rangnick meant by open heart surgery. Not that the individuals themselves are bad but the whole is a lot less than the sum of its parts.
Real Madrid just won the league with a regular back 4. Dortmund the other finalists have a back 4. The premier league winners Manchester City play a back 4.

The Italian and German league winners play a 3. Clearly its an option. However its clearly not needed

And if a new manager comes in and his goal is to convert to 3 at the back with wingbacks most likely we'd need all new players in most of those positions. Its a lot for something you can be successful without and with our transfer record we're unlikely to get the right players.

Its a far more solid plan to get a manager in who wants to play a standard back 4 and let him sign a couple of players to add to what we have to make our back 4 work. Even if the transfers are still bad, one of the players we werent counting on as a starter might take the oppertunity to find some form and play well taking their place because its a position they are a natural in. Thats far less likely to happen playing a new system they're having to learn to play from scratch. Not impossible but less likely.

Obviously there are smaller teams who play a different way to us, some with things like a 3 at the back system and they managed to get the players in on a budget.

Unfortunately history shows we're not capable of doing that. We pay a lot more for players who deliver less. I think the best you could reasonably hope for is we get those 3 or 4 players needed to make a back 3 with wingbacks work and a funcional midfield in front of it and do it spending a lot of money but being worth the money that was spent because it works and is successful and we're now making the money back with money earned.

Its possible. I'll wait till we're playing like a team who does the basics well first before I get my hopes up that we get a full rebuild working.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,539
Location
Hope, We Lose
You're right. We shouldn't even try to change actually. Just tell Wilcox, Berrada and Ashworth, when he comes, to keep doing what we've done for the last 11 years.
I dont remember us signing Tosin for free in the past 11 years. Perhaps you can remind me
 

Bubz27

No I won’t change your tag line
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
21,662
I dont remember us signing Tosin for free in the past 11 years. Perhaps you can remind me
I know it's not the right thread but that is not the point at all and you know it. In our exchange, that's the first time Tosin's name has been mentioned.
 

Teja

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
6,161
Real Madrid just won the league with a regular back 4. Dortmund the other finalists have a back 4. The premier league winners Manchester City play a back 4.

The Italian and German league winners play a 3. Clearly its an option. However its clearly not needed

And if a new manager comes in and his goal is to convert to 3 at the back with wingbacks most likely we'd need all new players in most of those positions. Its a lot for something you can be successful without and with our transfer record we're unlikely to get the right players.

Its a far more solid plan to get a manager in who wants to play a standard back 4 and let him sign a couple of players to add to what we have to make our back 4 work. Even if the transfers are still bad, one of the players we werent counting on as a starter might take the oppertunity to find some form and play well taking their place because its a position they are a natural in. Thats far less likely to happen playing a new system they're having to learn to play from scratch. Not impossible but less likely.

Obviously there are smaller teams who play a different way to us, some with things like a 3 at the back system and they managed to get the players in on a budget.

Unfortunately history shows we're not capable of doing that. We pay a lot more for players who deliver less. I think the best you could reasonably hope for is we get those 3 or 4 players needed to make a back 3 with wingbacks work and a funcional midfield in front of it and do it spending a lot of money but being worth the money that was spent because it works and is successful and we're now making the money back with money earned.

Its possible. I'll wait till we're playing like a team who does the basics well first before I get my hopes up that we get a full rebuild working.
You're missing the point. Regardless of whether you start with a 4 at the back or five or three or whatever, the point is that modern teams setup in this fashion (a 3-2) both in build up and to prevent counter attacks.

-------------- Player ----- Player ----------------
------- Player ------ Player ---- Player -------

You can make those 5 in whatever way you want. One coach in Italy (forgot the name right now) brings the two #10s into the deepest line and center backs higher up the pitch because midfielders can evade the press better.

With City as an example, despite starting with a back four. The five can be

------- Rodri --- Stones ---------
----- Ake --- Dias --- Walker --

(in the Stones libero days with him going into midfield)

or

---------- Akanji -- Rodri ------------
----- Gvardiol -- Dias -- Walker

or

------- Rodri --- Lewis --------------
----- Gvardiol -- Ake -- Dias ---

with Walker being an attacking RB. The last one is the structure closest to us if you replace Walker with Dalot and Gvardiol with Shaw.

Real have done this in the CL final too but many tweaks in-game to this so you can't generalize which 3 - 2 they used.
 

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
2,319
Supports
Arsenal
This signing would have been a no brainer. How are Chelsea able to keep spending and we are watching the pennies.

He would have cost us nothing, you put him on £100-150k a week, 4 year contract, 2-3 into the deal - you sell him and get most of what you paid him in wages back in transfer money.

The only reason I can think of him picking Chelsea is they are London based and he's settled there.
This feels like way too much teeth gnashing over a player of this profile. Maybe he'll do great at Chelsea but the most likely scenario is surely that he ends up as a respectable squad player that doesn't move the needle too far in either direction.

I think its wrong to suggest that this kind of signing costs you nothing. For one, people inside football will always say that a "free" transfer is never free. Between higher signing on bonus higher agents fees, and higher wages, you end up paying at least 50% of a market rate transfer fee in these transactions. So it can still be a good deal but if its a 30m rated player you're really paying like 15m for him in these hidden fees, not 0m.

The other really important cost is a squad place. If you give somebody like this 150k and he also has some kind of nice loyalty bonus if he sees out his contract, that's a player who is hard to move in his late 20s and who takes up a place in your squad. He may end up a good player who you're very glad to have in the squad but he may also end up as a player you'd like to improve on but is nearly impossible to move on.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
34,297
Dont think there were even 2 pages for Tielemans when he went to Aston Villa for free. Miles better than the likes of Amrabat though
I feel like our fans and club always underestimate the necessity of central midfielders. Even now the hyperfocus is on multiple CBs. I'd rather we put some more energy into getting some central midfielders who can recycle possession well and play under the press a little better.
 

Ekeke

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
53,539
Location
Hope, We Lose
You're missing the point. Regardless of whether you start with a 4 at the back or five or three or whatever, the point is that modern teams setup in this fashion (a 3-2) both in build up and to prevent counter attacks.

-------------- Player ----- Player ----------------
------- Player ------ Player ---- Player -------

You can make those 5 in whatever way you want. One coach in Italy (forgot the name right now) brings the two #10s into the deepest line and center backs higher up the pitch because midfielders can evade the press better.

With City as an example, despite starting with a back four. The five can be

------- Rodri --- Stones ---------
----- Ake --- Dias --- Walker --

(in the Stones libero days with him going into midfield)

or

---------- Akanji -- Rodri ------------
----- Gvardiol -- Dias -- Walker

or

------- Rodri --- Lewis --------------
----- Gvardiol -- Ake -- Dias ---

with Walker being an attacking RB. The last one is the structure closest to us if you replace Walker with Dalot and Gvardiol with Shaw.

Real have done this in the CL final too but many tweaks in-game to this so you can't generalize which 3 - 2 they used.
Its always been the usual for one fullback to join the attack on the side of the attack. The other fullback is still defending with the 2 CBs or at least ready to be there if the move breaks down. So yes there's 3 back and that does help prevent counters, plus any DMs behind the ball able to help out. But this isnt new.

Also I'm not sure you're correct that there's always 2 in front. Plenty of teams allow their midfielders to get forward and support the attack. A great example is Rodri this season getting forward and scoring 8 league goals. Thats their deepest most holding midfielder. Now when he does go forward his partner is probably at that moment holding their position as a counter weight. Thats still a 3-1 for City whether its Rodri getting forward or more often Kovacic who played their 2nd most games in midfield after Rodri. Stones played just 5 as did Nunes in the league, another more offensive minded midfielder.

In the champions league Rodri played 8 games, Kovacic played 3 and 6 different players played 2 or 1 match in there. Some of them were defenders, but once again Rodri was absolutely not a sitting midfielder this season. He joined the attack and would not be sitting there to defend a counter, he was getting on the scoresheet.

So City certainly dont play with 3 back and 2 midfielders behind the ball. Neither do Madrid. It is mostly 1 DM sitting and the rest are contributing to attack. Yes they flood the midfield with plenty of bodies, play an extra attacking midfielder of sorts in Valverde on the side and can resemble a diamond, but other than your main man in the middle picked to sit the rest are getting forward and helping to attack.

3-1 is mostly whats played by teams other than relegation battle strugglers. Perhaps even throwing both fullbacks forward and all midfielders except 1, leaving a 2-1 to defend and if the players are good enough they will deal with most counters by biding time for the players further forward to get back in position or take a foul when it saves hassle and doesnt get them into trouble.
 

flappyjay

Full Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2016
Messages
5,967
I feel like our fans and club always underestimate the necessity of central midfielders. Even now the hyperfocus is on multiple CBs. I'd rather we put some more energy into getting some central midfielders who can recycle possession well and play under the press a little better.
They watched the madrid midfield win multiple champions league and the conclusion is more cbs and a right backs. Messi couldn't win a ucl without xavi and iniesta but Madrid have continued to win it without cr7. Clearly modric, Casemiro and Kroos were a strong base for those wins. What they do next, continue to strengthen that area Camavinga, Tchuameni, Jude and Valvede.looks like they will be safe for another 10 years.
 

pcaming

United are an embarrassment.
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
3,068
Location
Trinidad & Tobago
I feel like our fans and club always underestimate the necessity of central midfielders. Even now the hyperfocus is on multiple CBs. I'd rather we put some more energy into getting some central midfielders who can recycle possession well and play under the press a little better.
Im so shocked how all those youtubers ignoring the fact we need 2, prob 3 midfield signings.
 

Dazzmondo

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
9,518
So glad we didn't put an average defender on £140k/w just because he was available on a bosman. Not good enough to start for Utd. Pretty much the same level as most of Chelsea's cbs.
 

Roboc7

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2014
Messages
6,751
So glad we didn't put an average defender on £140k/w just because he was available on a bosman. Not good enough to start for Utd. Pretty much the same level as most of Chelsea's cbs.
I agree, I just hope we are also sensible enough not to bail Chelsea out and pay 25m for a defender who missed half of last season through injury and will want about 100k a week.
 

Rolaholic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
11,349
I agree, I just hope we are also sensible enough not to bail Chelsea out and pay 25m for a defender who missed half of last season through injury and will want about 100k a week.
Swear it better not end up like us buying Matic in turn funding them buying Kanté and us buying Mount in turn funding their purchase of Palmer :lol: :(
 

Dazzmondo

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
9,518
I agree, I just hope we are also sensible enough not to bail Chelsea out and pay 25m for a defender who missed half of last season through injury and will want about 100k a week.
Agreed. Hoping we look outside of England unless we can get Branthwaite for a reasonable fee.
 

Withnail

Full Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
30,950
Location
The Arena of the Unwell
And we did good this season didn't we?

Maguire is not good enough to start or be an option for us because the style of football we have to play to accommodate his weaknesses is abysmal. The back ups have to be an extension of the style of the starters.

Makes no sense to have a team built to play a high line, squeeze the pitch, be able to defend one on one and then if there's one injury there, change our entire style.
Couldn't agree more. You'd wonder what other people are watching sometimes.
 

Rojofiam

Full Member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
3,901
So glad we didn't put an average defender on £140k/w just because he was available on a bosman. Not good enough to start for Utd. Pretty much the same level as most of Chelsea's cbs.
Agreed with your first sentence. I'd say 140k per week would've been too much for a player like Adarabioyo even for our current wage bill, which is a bit of a mess, let alone for a restructured one that INEOS are apparently intending to create.

https://www.capology.com/club/manchester-united/salaries/
 

Bondi77

Full Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
7,540
Willy Kambwala has a much higher ceiling than this guy so I couldn't care less who this guy signs for.
 

AkaAkuma

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
3,217
Last 2 seasons he’s not gotten above 2,000 minutes in the PL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.