both have been okay signings. both have given absolutely everything and have been effective at different times. I think the more remarkable story is Fellaini who proved valuable time and time again after being booed by his own fans.
Which was the better signing - Mata or Fellaini?
- Thread starter KM
- Start date
Mata by a country mile.
Fellaini has given us more points and wins - but represents everything bad that happened to the club. Lost our identity, poor technically, down to hoof-ball... and that’s why Mata.
For all that Juan too wasn’t the right guy for us, he was a classy guy and had technical skill (still does). Was played wrong by all his managers given his skill-set but isn’t a player about whom you’d say “Ferguson wouldn’t have signed him”. So Mata by a mile - not for contribution to wins and points but for what the players represented.
For all that Juan too wasn’t the right guy for us, he was a classy guy and had technical skill (still does). Was played wrong by all his managers given his skill-set but isn’t a player about whom you’d say “Ferguson wouldn’t have signed him”. So Mata by a mile - not for contribution to wins and points but for what the players represented.
Mata. Obviously.
Mata - can't believe it's even a question
Except he hasn't. Fellaini has played 177 times for United and scored 22 goals? Whereas Mata has played 209 times and scored 44 goals? That's without comparing their assists records which, well......
In terms of who has contributed more towards Manchester United earning points, it's Mata.
Neither, both were overpriced failures.
Mata and it's not close.
Glad to see the poll reflect reality a bit more than comments.
Glad to see the poll reflect reality a bit more than comments.
Fellaini and it isn’t even close.
After that logic how many goals Ferdinand or De Gea scored? Mata plays a more forward role then Fellaini so it's only natural to score more.
But let's be honest, Fellaini doesn't contribute much when he isn't scoring, outside of being a nuisance.
Right. So you think the people who say Fellaini has won us more games think he did so with his sterling DM performances as opposed to his attacking impact?
Because unless you think Fellaini's worth actually came from what he did as a midfielder in midfield then we're actually talking about his impact in attack too, in terms of goals and nuisance value.
Not bothered looking up stats. Maybe Fellaini for the EL was decent? Regardless, Mata was better by several leagues.
I genuinely don't think its as lop sided as the poll suggests.
Fellaini whilst embodying everything wrong with Post Ferguson United has been crucial in every of our trophies post Fergie.
Mata joined us as one of the leagues best player in the previous seaosn and hasn't been nowhere near that level here for a consistent time period.
Fellaini whilst embodying everything wrong with Post Ferguson United has been crucial in every of our trophies post Fergie.
Mata joined us as one of the leagues best player in the previous seaosn and hasn't been nowhere near that level here for a consistent time period.
Definitely Juan Mata, however, if he was consistently played as a no.10 behind the striker, rather than off the right, he would have made a far bigger mark at United imo. But we have Pogba firing in that position now, so it just isn't going to happen for him unfortunately.
Mata.
One is actually Manchester United standard, who at his prime was a world class no.10. The other is a mid level hoofball target.
It’s fitting that Fellaini perpetually reminds me of Moyes whereas I often forget that Mata was signed by him too.
I also don’t buy that Fellaini was better for us in the slightest. Fellaini was better for the likes of Moyes and Mourinho with their drab route 1 football. Under a manager with a more progressive, attacking footballing philosophy I’d garner we would have made use of Mata better. Likewise for Kagawa and Mikhitaryan too (yeah I dug those up again).
One is actually Manchester United standard, who at his prime was a world class no.10. The other is a mid level hoofball target.
It’s fitting that Fellaini perpetually reminds me of Moyes whereas I often forget that Mata was signed by him too.
I also don’t buy that Fellaini was better for us in the slightest. Fellaini was better for the likes of Moyes and Mourinho with their drab route 1 football. Under a manager with a more progressive, attacking footballing philosophy I’d garner we would have made use of Mata better. Likewise for Kagawa and Mikhitaryan too (yeah I dug those up again).
Mata has never been world class for us though. Not even close.
Indeed.
Off the top of my head I can think of a few crucial goals against City, plenty of goals/assists against Liverpool, a goal against Arsenal in that 1-1 draw a few years ago now and an equaliser in the FA Cup final? I'm sure I'm forgetting more important big game goals too and that's without mentioning the countless smaller games where he grabbed a crucial goal.
It isn't particularly surprising. When you score twice as many goals as someone you tend to have a bit of an edge.
Last edited:
Before Mata’s numbers fell off a cliff last season, he was among our most productive attacking players.
It’s only due to a difference in expectation that we are even having this discussion.
It’s only due to a difference in expectation that we are even having this discussion.
You’re right he hasn’t. But I’d guess that’s down to the style of football and drab philosophy of our previous managers. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I’d have imagined him to be a very different player for us under someone like Poch when Mata first joined.
Fellaini. He contributed more imo, it's just he was hated during his time here and people never looked at him objectively. Posts about him representing everything wrong about United after Fergie always did my head in.
Mata never met expectations although he of course had his good moments, he'll always have Juanfield.
It's just it seen to his time at United drifted without leaving a mark.
Mata never met expectations although he of course had his good moments, he'll always have Juanfield.
It's just it seen to his time at United drifted without leaving a mark.
To be fair that's a very good point.
Big Fella
On one side there is a player who at his best can have game named after him and at his worst is still tolerable and hardly has a negative impact. On the other side there is a player who at his best, while having been a thorough professional and contributing to our success, has been just good and at his worst has literally cost us points.
If we want to talk about Fellaini objectively, we can't ignore his numerous red cards, clumsy moments and the style of play when he was on the pitch.
It's Mata and it isn't really close. Mata was one of our main sources of goals under LVG and has significantly better numbers in terms of both goals and assists. He scored the brace at Anfield and technically he's just on a different level.
It's Mata and it isn't really close. Mata was one of our main sources of goals under LVG and has significantly better numbers in terms of both goals and assists. He scored the brace at Anfield and technically he's just on a different level.
Spot on.
Fellaini got 2 red cards in league in his ManUtd career, one was vs Hull in the last league game in 2014-15 which had 0 impact on the league, and one more vs City the game which ended 0-0. (both red cards ended with 0-0 and dropped points had 0 impact on league position)
Mata for red card in 26th min vs West Brom and we lost the game, we ended the season level on points in the league and ended up 5th.
Mata had peaks like Juanfield but Fellaini scored many important goals too, especially in the FA cup and Europa league.
Fellaini came here and was... Felliani. We got what we paid for and he played to the best of his ability, which is obviously nowhere near the level of a proper United player.
Mata came here and was expected to be a superstar, just as he was at Chelsea and hasn't come close to living up to those expectations.
Mata is aesthetically pleasing, a nice guy and has Juanfield; there's no way he will lose a poll to the antithesis of this.
Felliani represents a lot of what nobody wants United to be: hoofball, donkeyish, the bad side of physical etc. Mata, at his best, is a player many would hope could slot into a United side playing great football. Again, Felliani stands no chance in a poll when this is considered.
I'm no fan of Felliani, but he is the winner of the two for meeting expectation of the signing.
Mata came here and was expected to be a superstar, just as he was at Chelsea and hasn't come close to living up to those expectations.
Mata is aesthetically pleasing, a nice guy and has Juanfield; there's no way he will lose a poll to the antithesis of this.
Felliani represents a lot of what nobody wants United to be: hoofball, donkeyish, the bad side of physical etc. Mata, at his best, is a player many would hope could slot into a United side playing great football. Again, Felliani stands no chance in a poll when this is considered.
I'm no fan of Felliani, but he is the winner of the two for meeting expectation of the signing.
That to me is the issue and why Mata is the better. Fellaini symbolized our declining expectations and acceptance of mediocrity and hoofball. Mata didn't. That we failed with managerial appointments after this is not down to Mata. So to me, Juan "Juanfield" Mata will also be a far better signing than Marouane "Elbow Tree" Fellaini. Like I said, no disrespect for what Fellaini did for us, nor for his commitment etc., but no comparison. Mata wins hands down.
He was also sent off against Leverkusen in the Champions League. Circumstances don't really matter and if they did, Mata's red against West Brom was harsh.
Threads like these are usually made to account for the dog's abuse Fellaini got in his early days at United. He's a good professional but we shouldn't conflate that with ability. If not for Mourinho our style would've moved past him long ago.
If you mean goals conceded, then I agree.
It's not close. The transfer fees were comparable and while Mata hasn't lived up to the high expectations, he's been a way more useful player for us than Fellaini. The latter had his use as an impact sub but more often than not, his technical deficits have prevented us from playing the way we want to play. And let's not forget, Fellaini hasn't lived up to expectations either. Despite being a very expensive signing at the time, he never managed to really nail down a place in the team.
I said league games, in any case his red cards didn't cost us much.
Also style, ability, player preference has nothing to do with this, it's very simple, who had more impact in their ManUtd career. Both have almost same impact with Fellaini edging with his performance in cup games.
Not a single player in the league would rather play against Fellaini than Mata.
Mata is the definition of a nothing player.
Mata is the definition of a nothing player.
Nah fellaini contributed very little over his time here and his impact has been vastly overstated.
Mata by a country mile
Fellaini being better because he gave us what we expected doesn't wash. He caused the expectations to be lowered by making fans accept he was worthy to be in the team. Excuses like "he has his uses" and "He's good plan B" came out and we never used to hear that. Even our utility players like J Park had more ability on the ball.
How is this even a thread?
Fellaini scored in QF replay vs West Ham in a 2-1 win, scored in semi finals in 2-1 win and assisted a goal in finals in a 2-1 win. That's a very good impact in the cup competition.
He also assisted goal vs Anderlecht in 2-1 win in QFs, scored a goal in 1-1 draw in semi finals and assisted goal in finals. Again good impact in Europa league.
Both have been average signings but at least in Cup competitions Fellaini's contribution > Mata's.
Thos are what? 6 games over 6 years?