Of course it was - being half decent at a relegation candidate is not a reason to keep him at a club aspiring to return to the top.
Where will the goals come from?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
If the guy needs 30 games to score 5 goals then the answer is pretty clear to me.
Just because United are lacking goals is not the argument to keep another player who also struggles to bang them in. Again 100% correct decision to let him go.
We need to start using our academy to generate revenue. I don't think Elanga would have added much. The decision to sell was before Sancho decided to self immolate his career, and hindsight is 20/20
Do you understand that currently we have no strikers except Hojulnd? When he is out, we have to play Rashford out of position. And when Hojlund is not injured he has to play 90 minutes because there is nobody else. The current situation is not good for Hojlund, it is not good for the team either, we needed another striker and that's why we shouldn't sell Elanga last summer. First find a cover, then sell him.
This discussion has nothing to do with Sancho. We are talking about Elanga as a cover for the striker position. Sancho is not a striker.
So now we should of kept a LW who has scored 5 goals all season as cover for Hojlund? 
this Elanga hill is a strange one to die on, but I will leave you to it @frostbite
this Elanga hill is a strange one to die on, but I will leave you to it @frostbiteI mean he was played there during pre season, which placed him ahead of Elanga in the manager's plans. Ten Hag probably counted on Martial being able to stand unaided as well.
Wish we kept the LW *and* the 85m we spent on Antony, still would've been better offSo now we should of kept a LW who has scored 5 goals all season as cover for Hojlund?
Elanga looks to me one of those players who definitely needs space to run into as his main attribute is pace rather than skill or trickery, so struggles when up against a deep defence where some skill and intricacy is needed. At best, he'd have been a useful sub to have for us this season to come on against tiring defenders, or when the game is stretched.
But as a starter he's much more suited to playing for a team like Forest in the PL, who'll often have the chance to counter attack and where he regularly has space to drive into which suits his game perfectly. And he's having a really good season for his standards. And yet he's still only got 5 league goals. That pretty much describes his level.
He's one of those players who, when playing at a smaller club, people will talk about his positive attributes, and the threat he can offer, more than his lack of end product. But if playing for a bigger club, it would be the reverse. Which is exactly what happened during his time at United followed by Forest.
That's why it's hit and miss signing players being praised at smaller clubs. Some are so good that they definitely can replicate that at a higher level. Others are just at the right level, and are just judged more positively because of it and then look out of their depth at a bigger club.
But as a starter he's much more suited to playing for a team like Forest in the PL, who'll often have the chance to counter attack and where he regularly has space to drive into which suits his game perfectly. And he's having a really good season for his standards. And yet he's still only got 5 league goals. That pretty much describes his level.
He's one of those players who, when playing at a smaller club, people will talk about his positive attributes, and the threat he can offer, more than his lack of end product. But if playing for a bigger club, it would be the reverse. Which is exactly what happened during his time at United followed by Forest.
That's why it's hit and miss signing players being praised at smaller clubs. Some are so good that they definitely can replicate that at a higher level. Others are just at the right level, and are just judged more positively because of it and then look out of their depth at a bigger club.
Elanga isn't a striker, he's a version of Rashford, and would have been as useful as Rashford covering Hojlund
Rodri on 10 goals so far this season. I know Casemiro chipped in last season, but we can’t even get our forwards to 10 goals 
You could see it last season. Although we were pretty solid we weren't creating a lot of chances.
If it wasn't for Rashford's goals we would not have finished 3rd.
If it wasn't for Rashford's goals we would not have finished 3rd.
This is the most reductionist thread ever.
Simply valuing players by goal contributions doesn't necessarily mean a lot.
Rashford scored 30 goals last season. That was abnormally good from him, not denying that. Well done, pat on the back.
But if he hadn't played, it doesn't mean we would have scored less goals. It means we would play differently, leading to different types of goals from different goal scorers.
Without Rashford, we would keep more possession. Because...
1) We'd have to play less high risk on the counter.
2) Rashford gives the ball away quite a lot.
3) Rashford doesn't press.
Increase in possession most often leads to less chances conceded, and more chances created.
And hard evidence also backs this up. When Rashford doesn't play, we don't score any less than when he does play.
Here's another example:
Spurs scored 70 PL goals last season.
Using the logic of this thread, they wouldn't have unless it was for Harry Kane.
Well, they have currently scored 62 goals, and have 8 more games to play. Meaning, they will likely outscore their previous tally, even without Kane.
You can do the same for various other players and scenarios:
United before and after Ronaldo's comeback.
Ronaldo was our biggest goal threat in his comeback season.
Yet it didn't really affect our goal tally. It's still pretty much close to the same it was both before he came, and after.
Ronaldo left, and other players scored.
Same goes for Bayern before and after Lewandowski.
Juventus before and after Ronaldo.
Not to mention, City before and after Haaland. It's pretty much the same. They've just shifted more goal contributions from many players onto a single player.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
A good striker or winger certainly doesn't hurt. But what's really important is the playing style and amount of possession. That dictates numbers of goals scored more than individual goal scorers.
Any team with a decent enough striker, will score a lot of goals if they also manage to dominate possession and control the games. Darwin Nunez is a prime example of that. Neither Nunez or Salah has blown the world away with their amount of goals this season. They've scored a decent amount, but nowhere near as much many would expect. But even still, Liverpool have no problems scoring a lot of goals. Nunez isn't the world's best striker, not by a long shot. But what he is, is one of the best team players. He will constantly press, be in the right position, make sure Liverpool either retain possession or wreak havoc on his opponents. He makes Liverpool a better team. Not mainly through his goals, but through his playing style.
So yeah... This thread is just reducing everything down to outcome bias, by simply focusing on who scores the goals.
Whenever someone says: "Oh no, who will score our goals or create our assists if players like Rashford or Bruno don't play" ... The answer is; someone else will, and our total goals tally won't be much different. The most important thing that would change our goals tally is improving our control and possession. Then sure, add a decent or pretty good striker (like Nunez or maybe even Højlund some day can be), and we would be off to the races.
As long as we keep playing this chaotic brand of sh*tty counterattacking football, our goal difference won't change much regardless of who scores or plays. There will only be negligible differences. At best it will put us in the top four/five. At worst it will put is right outside the top four/five.
Simply valuing players by goal contributions doesn't necessarily mean a lot.
Rashford scored 30 goals last season. That was abnormally good from him, not denying that. Well done, pat on the back.
But if he hadn't played, it doesn't mean we would have scored less goals. It means we would play differently, leading to different types of goals from different goal scorers.
Without Rashford, we would keep more possession. Because...
1) We'd have to play less high risk on the counter.
2) Rashford gives the ball away quite a lot.
3) Rashford doesn't press.
Increase in possession most often leads to less chances conceded, and more chances created.
And hard evidence also backs this up. When Rashford doesn't play, we don't score any less than when he does play.
Here's another example:
Spurs scored 70 PL goals last season.
Using the logic of this thread, they wouldn't have unless it was for Harry Kane.
Well, they have currently scored 62 goals, and have 8 more games to play. Meaning, they will likely outscore their previous tally, even without Kane.
You can do the same for various other players and scenarios:
United before and after Ronaldo's comeback.
Ronaldo was our biggest goal threat in his comeback season.
Yet it didn't really affect our goal tally. It's still pretty much close to the same it was both before he came, and after.
Ronaldo left, and other players scored.
Same goes for Bayern before and after Lewandowski.
Juventus before and after Ronaldo.
Not to mention, City before and after Haaland. It's pretty much the same. They've just shifted more goal contributions from many players onto a single player.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
A good striker or winger certainly doesn't hurt. But what's really important is the playing style and amount of possession. That dictates numbers of goals scored more than individual goal scorers.
Any team with a decent enough striker, will score a lot of goals if they also manage to dominate possession and control the games. Darwin Nunez is a prime example of that. Neither Nunez or Salah has blown the world away with their amount of goals this season. They've scored a decent amount, but nowhere near as much many would expect. But even still, Liverpool have no problems scoring a lot of goals. Nunez isn't the world's best striker, not by a long shot. But what he is, is one of the best team players. He will constantly press, be in the right position, make sure Liverpool either retain possession or wreak havoc on his opponents. He makes Liverpool a better team. Not mainly through his goals, but through his playing style.
So yeah... This thread is just reducing everything down to outcome bias, by simply focusing on who scores the goals.
Whenever someone says: "Oh no, who will score our goals or create our assists if players like Rashford or Bruno don't play" ... The answer is; someone else will, and our total goals tally won't be much different. The most important thing that would change our goals tally is improving our control and possession. Then sure, add a decent or pretty good striker (like Nunez or maybe even Højlund some day can be), and we would be off to the races.
As long as we keep playing this chaotic brand of sh*tty counterattacking football, our goal difference won't change much regardless of who scores or plays. There will only be negligible differences. At best it will put us in the top four/five. At worst it will put is right outside the top four/five.
Last edited:
I was going to say good bump because it’s interesting to compare early predictions with where we are now (hats off to Garnacho for taking my OP completely by surprise) Your post is a mess though. The intention was to predict the main goal scorers this season, that’s all. Nothing more complicated than that. So I have no idea why it bothers you so much. Despite your lengthy rant. I also deduct marks for your decision to use the phrase “goal points”.
Oh and only 27 goals needed in our next 8 fixtures to hit that magic 70 number. Easy peasy!
Here’s how I came up with 70.
15 goals needed in 8 games to improve on last season.
As if the thread hadn't already derailed? Seemed just as on topic as the last couple of pages.
Anyway, I didn't try to make fun of your original post. Seems like a novel little contest. Just pointing out how the thread has just devolved into what I was referring to.
Had I known it would hurt your feelings using the word "points" instead of "contributions", I'd been more precise.
Anyway, I didn't try to make fun of your original post. Seems like a novel little contest. Just pointing out how the thread has just devolved into what I was referring to.
Had I known it would hurt your feelings using the word "points" instead of "contributions", I'd been more precise.
Can’t say fairer than that. What can I say? I’m a sensitive soul!
Not when you're in the airport laughing at the Brits in the long queue though
In all seriousness, I apologize for further derailing the thread. No sarcasm.
Jaysus, no need to apologise. I just saw the bump and thought it was a great idea. Then threw a strop when you seemed to be attacking the concept of the thread. I’m a grumpy man at the best of times and this awful fecking season isn’t helping!
Good to know. Absolutely, this season can't end soon enough. And hopefully we can manage somewhat of an okay transfer window.