Manchester United Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Weren't there some stats showing the amount of games we won with Scholes in the team? Think the win % was higher with Scholes in the side.

So what?

The team lost every game Park started last year, was it always Parks fault the team lost?

There are too many variables involved for those stats to be worth something tbh

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

You know damn well that is not what he is saying

I think what some posters, and my father , are saying is that Rooney (for example) shouldn't be missing penalties, or should be able to find a teammate with a 10 yard pass, because of the money they receive, and not because of how good a footballer they are.

Oh so you're saying Rooney isn't good enough a footballer to pass 10 yards. But didn't you say he IS one of the best players in the world?

Or what was he trying to say?

Al Capwned

MagicMarker wrote: »

This time in 4 weeks we'll all be discussing the line up against Everton.

Oh jesus christ it can't come quickly enough. Parts of this are tiresome at times.

Giggsy11

Pro. F wrote: »

Three things count against that theory imo.

Firstly, we have palyed 451 in big games plenty of times and still been poor at keeping and using possession.

Then we should blame the other midfielders not Carrick as Carrick role is completely different? Protect the back 4?

Secondly, Rooney playing the withdrawn role in a 4411 is only very marginally different from most 451s and most ACMs. I know Rooney is not great at beating defenders around the edge of the box and often can't come up with a killer through ball, but he still shows excellently for the midfield and helps a lot in the general keep ball passing and moving type of play and his defensive work is very good. I really don't think United are as disadvantaged by the 4411 match-up to 451 as might be first thought.

We are, Rooney playing deeper doesn't mean he was playing as a midfielder, we were outnumbered in many games. Rooney helped midfield a lot and even Welbeck with tracking back so many times in any game but still if you see any team playing possession football, they move as a team and play close to each other which I don't see happening at United. We rely on wingers too much and that's how we try to attack.

Few examples being how Italy, Barca, Spain, City played. The players always gives you the option with their movements and also there will be player available for pass. Most of the times United attack starts by diagonal pass from Scholes to wings and a quick counter attack.

Finally, when Anderson and Cleverley played in together in the 4411 the team were transformed into a slick passing and quick moving joy to watch I know it was only a few games, but one of those games was against City. And more importantly it was a complete transformation in the ability of the team to keep and use the ball, not just a slight improvement

.

I agree with this, we were joy to watch with quick interchanging play and I wouldn't lie, I thought we are changing our style for better but at the same time we were all over the place defensively. Also our average possession per game was greater with Carrick in the team (Not that it proves anything, just negates ability to keep the ball point IMO)

Samich

kryogen wrote: »

So what?

The team lost every game Park started last year, was it always Parks fault the team lost?

There are too many variables involved for those stats to be worth something tbh

Well he's been sold so obvious he wasn't good enough.

Pro. F

Samich wrote: »

Weren't there some stats showing the amount of games we won with Scholes in the team? Think the win % was higher with Scholes in the side.

It was. But don't forget that Anderson was injured and Cleverley fell out with Fergie when he came back from injury. So when Scholes was out we had to rely on Giggs who is pretty poor as a CM now.

Just because the creative CM role has been short of numbers doesn't prove that the defensive CM role has been good enough.

caffrey

Samich wrote: »

Weren't there some stats showing the amount of games we won with Scholes in the team? Think the win % was higher with Scholes in the side.

Just looked it up there. We only lost one league game with scholes in the team, against Man City. Nobody played that well against city except maybe de gea. He didn't play against bilbao in either leg. We lost against liverpool in the cup but scholes bossed that game before going off and liverpool scored late on after he was subbed

Mitch Connor

Pj! wrote: »

.

i'm really not sure what the hell you are doing with that post....

There are people saying we aren't really going for RVP - that it is a stunt to

(a) make out we tried to sign top players (hiding that we don't have the money)
(b) force the price up on City
(c) create some excitement to shift poorly selling season tickets.

That is what my post is aimed at. I'm not sure why you felt the need to agree so oddly and question me at the end.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Oh so you're saying Rooney isn't good enough a footballer to pass 10 yards. But didn't you say he IS one of the best players in the world?

Or what was he trying to say?

Its actually even in the bit you boded, I cant continue this with you sorry. I think you cannot really be not understanding this.

kryogen

Samich wrote: »

Well he's been sold so obvious he wasn't good enough.

Oh cool, so we will not lose any games this season cause Park is gone! Great to know

DM_7

Pro. F wrote: »

Finally, when Anderson and Cleverley played in together in the 4411 the team were transformed into a slick passing and quick moving joy to watch. I know it was only a few games, but one of those games was against City. And more importantly it was a complete transformation in the ability of the team to keep and use the ball, not just a slight improvement.

Without trying to start a debate on this - the City game caused a change in tactics not just personnel. SAF actively looked to stop the opposition getting chances, that in turn made a significant contribution to the end of quick ball movement,slick passing. Scan a few match reports and SAF consistently talks about keeping out the opposition and solidity.

kryogen

He did, even when the team was scoring for fun he was bemoaning the amount of chances the opposition were getting.

Al Capwned

Samich wrote: »

Oh so you're saying Rooney isn't good enough a footballer to pass 10 yards. But didn't you say he IS one of the best players in the world?

Or what was he trying to say?

Seriously??? you got ^^ that !!!

From this

I think what some posters, and my father , are saying is that Rooney (for example) shouldn't be missing penalties, or should be able to find a teammate with a 10 yard pass, because of the money they receive, and not because of how good a footballer they are.

Later.

gosplan

No-one else watch the Lucas videos and reckon he might be found out big time by decent defeders??

Ronaldo has a serious intellect when it comes to the game unfolding IMO. That's what makes him the player he is. Lucas looks to me like he might just be a box of tricks and little else.

Obviously, we won't knbow for a while cause he's just 19 bnut the idea of him contributing at the same level as Ronaldo seems a bit pie int he sky for now.

Jimmy Iovine

Samich wrote: »

So you're saying Rooney shouldn't be able to find a team mate with a pass 10 yards away?

I think you should take a break from the internet for a while.

Go talk a walk, count to 100 or do a jigsaw.

Mitch Connor

gosplan wrote: »

No-one else watch the Lucas videos and reckon he might be found out big time by decent defeders??

Ronaldo has a serious intellect when it comes to the game unfolding IMO. That's what makes him the player he is. Lucas looks to me like he might just be a box of tricks and little else.

Obviously, we won't knbow for a while cause he's just 19 bnut the idea of him contributing at the same level as Ronaldo seems a bit pie int he sky for now.

well yeah, because Ronaldo is at worst the second best attacking player in football. Saying Lucas will be the same as him short term is crazy.

But, you have to remember Ronaldo in his first couple of seasons with United - he was possibly the most frustrating player ever. A bag of tricks that he just kept showing. Exciting but nowhere near the end product we could reasonabley expect from the positions he got himself in to.

Lucas would likely be just as frustrating, but there is the potential for him to be a world star. He would need to be nurtured and shown patience, as Ronaldo was.

Samich

Samich wrote: »

Well he's been sold so obvious he wasn't good enough.

So you're not going to answer his question then?

Pro. F

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Then we should blame the other midfielders not Carrick as Carrick role is completely different? Protect the back 4?

Having a central midfielder in there to just protect the back four just doesn't work. They have to be able to turn on the ball under pressure and pass it forward and so help start attacks. If they can't do that then the defence can be isolated from the rest of the team by just closing down that deep lying midfielder and crappy long balls and poor possession follows.

If one of the central midfielders is only in there to protect the back four and is not contributing properly to the possession play then you are still outnumbered in that side of the game. Teams who have a full set of three proper CMs, who all meet the minimum requirements of skill on the ball, would still outnumber us in the possession game.

Giggsy11 wrote: »

We are, Rooney playing deeper doesn't mean he was playing as a midfielder, we were outnumbered in many games. Rooney helped midfield a lot and even Welbeck with tracking back so many times in any game but still if you see any team playing possession football, they move as a team and play close to each other which I don't see happening at United. We rely on wingers too much and that's how we try to attack.

Few examples being how Italy, Barca, Spain, City played. The players always gives you the option with their movements and also there will be player available for pass. Most of the times United attack starts by diagonal pass from Scholes to wings and a quick counter attack.

Imo the reason we rely on the wingers so much and the long diagonal passes is because the team so often just can't do the short passing and moving game. We struggle desperately to move the ball through the opposition midfield so in the end we just pass it to the wingers and hope the front four can link up and create something.

Imo Scholes (even with his lack of mobility) and Rooney are excellent at the short passing and moving required to get more out of possession, but Carrick is the weak link that causes the serious problems.

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I agree with this, we were joy to watch with quick interchanging play and I wouldn't lie, I thought we are changing our style for better but at the same time we were all over the place defensively. Also our average possession per game was greater with Carrick in the team (Not that it proves anything, just negates ability to keep the ball point IMO)

The defensive problems were a big issue, I agree. Anderson couldn't be relied on in that role and Cleverley is not even slightly defensive (he may develop that in the future but I doubt it). Imo that period proves how well this team can keep and use possession when there are two central midfielders who are good on the ball. That's why I think that we need a proper well rounded defensive CM. Defensive ability and skill on the ball are not mutually exclusive. If we got somebody like Martinez, Fellaini, Las Diarra (just my choices, I know you don't fancy Las) then our need in that regard would be met.

With regards to the possession stats, I honestly think those numbers are useless at portraying how the possession battle really went. So many times I have seen one team be clearly better in possession and using it to their advantage, but yet when the game is over the stats are close to 50/50. It's only when a team completely concedes possession that the possession stat starts to reflect a difference. I say believe your eyes over soccer stats which still haven't succeeded as being good predictors of performance.

Giggsy11

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying, Carrick is bit limited, he is ineffective when not given space and he doesn't have Scholes like brain to make space for himself or even close control like Scholes.

But he is very good reader of the game, defensively good. That's why I said he should be played with other 2 midfielders who are good on the ball so that his weakness will be covered by other 2 players and the defensive liability of those players will be covered by Carrick (Working as a team).

Our problem is not even Carrick IMO. It is the one to partner him. If we can get better than Carrick (which can be done) then fine, or first priority should be sign good CM to play alongside Carrick.

No doubt he can read the game, and he's defensively only OK, nothing amazing for sure. But the thought of considering a 3 man midfield purely because of his limitations limits us in many other ways. Even with 2 other midfielders, Carrick will sit deep and do defensive work but he will more often than not be the main link between defence and attack in this scenario.

This still leaves him open to be closed down and one of the teams main links cut off or have one of the other midfielders drop further back to help compensate. Which will invite teams onto us as we will have less up front. I'm not sure what the answer is to all of this, but Carrick is too limited IMO for what Man United want to achieve consistently.

Pro. F

DM-ICE wrote: »

Without trying to start a debate on this - the City game caused a change in tactics not just personnel. SAF actively looked to stop the opposition getting chances, that in turn made a significant contribution to the end of quick ball movement,slick passing. Scan a few match reports and SAF consistently talks about keeping out the opposition and solidity.

The slick passing and quick movement stopped before the City game. It stopped as soon as Cleverley got injured and Fletch and Carrick started coming into the team. Also that quick passing, movement and control of possession involving the entire midfield (as opposed to quick interchanges mostly just between the forwards) had never happened before during the last few years. There was a clear improvement in the teams' ability to control possession, drag the opposition around and cut them open with passing moves when Anderson and Cleverley played together in the CM.

Giggsy11

Pro. F wrote: »

Having a central midfielder in there to just protect the back four just doesn't work. They have to be able to turn on the ball under pressure and pass it forward and so help start attacks. If they can't do that then the defence can be isolated from the rest of the team by just closing down that deep lying midfielder and crappy long balls and poor possession follows.

If one of the central midfielders is only in there to protect the back four and is not contributing properly to the possession play then you are still outnumbered in that side of the game. Teams who have a full set of three proper CMs, who all meet the minimum requirements of skill on the ball, would still outnumber us in the possession game.

But how can we blame Carrick for not dominating the possession playing 4-5-1 when he averaged more than 90% is almost all games? There is something wrong and it is not only with Carrick?

Carrick only problem (which is big enough) is he is not good enough when under pressure but his short passing was never a problem. If anything Carrick contributes immensely to our possession game, just that he can't carry the ball forward when pressed, which he relies on his midfield partner to do.

Imo the reason we rely on the wingers so much and the long diagonal passes is because the team so often just can't do the short passing and moving game. We struggle desperately to move the ball through the opposition midfield so in the end we just pass it to the wingers and hope the front four can link up and create something.

Imo Scholes (even with his lack of mobility) and Rooney are excellent at the short passing and moving required to get more out of possession, but Carrick is the weak link that causes the serious problems.

Agree with the first bit, we can't play pass and move for many reasons.
Re second, Carrick short passing is not the weak link, if anything after his defensive side, that is his biggest asset. He plays safe passes more often and relies on his partner to do the attacking part.

The defensive problems were a big issue, I agree. Anderson couldn't be relied on in that role and Cleverley is not even slightly defensive (he may develop that in the future but I doubt it). Imo that period proves how well this team can keep and use possession when there are two central midfielders who are good on the ball. That's why I think that we need a proper well rounded defensive CM. Defensive ability and skill on the ball are not mutually exclusive. If we got somebody like Martinez, Fellaini, Las Diarra (just my choices, I know you don't fancy Las) then our need in that regard would be met.

The way we were exposed defensively if any forward had half decent day we would have conceded few goals. First 3 games were exciting (also against Bolton where Carrick played) but we were very exposed at the back and after City game there is no way SAF would have gone with same all out attack tactics again.

]With regards to the possession stats, I honestly think those numbers are useless at portraying how the possession battle really went. So many times I have seen one team be clearly better in possession and using it to their advantage, but yet when the game is over the stats are close to 50/50. It's only when a team completely concedes possession that the possession stat starts to reflect a difference. I say believe your eyes over soccer stats which still haven't succeeded as being good predictors of performance.

I agree with this, it was just to point out "ability to retain possession" part.

Edit: Anyways we have done this quite a few times. We know where we stand on this

Like I said if we can find better than Carrick I'm all for replacing him, but at the moment our weak links are the players playing with him (When it's not Scholes) and the use of 4-4-2 (Which looks likely will be changed this season).

Giggsy11

Sacramento wrote: »

No doubt he can read the game, and he's defensively only OK, nothing amazing for sure. But the thought of considering a 3 man midfield purely because of his limitations limits us in many other ways. Even with 2 other midfielders, Carrick will sit deep and do defensive work but he will more often than not be the main link between defence and attack in this scenario.

This still leaves him open to be closed down and one of the teams main links cut off or have one of the other midfielders drop further back to help compensate. Which will invite teams onto us as we will have less up front. I'm not sure what the answer is to all of this, but Carrick is too limited IMO for what Man United want to achieve consistently.

I'm not saying we should play 3 midfielders to cover Carrick but also not to be outnumbered by the big teams playing 3 and us playing 2.

IMO we should look at changing our tactics with or without Carrick as 4-4-2 needs Keane like battler which we don't have. It worked really well in 2006-07 when Carrick-Scholes controlled midfield and wingers did the damage but sadly we don't have Keane (of any year) and the Scholes of 2006-08.

POSSY

CSF wrote: »

This is a baffling overly simplistic view of football that I just can't get my head around.

"It's a simple game Bill"

In all fairness I'm beginning to think Samich may be a Senior Analyst

wheres me jumpa

Lucas personal highlights from appearance vs Team GB.

DM_7

Pro. F wrote: »

The slick passing and quick movement stopped before the City game. It stopped as soon as Cleverley got injured and Fletch and Carrick started coming into the team. Also that quick passing, movement and control of possession involving the entire midfield (as opposed to quick interchanges mostly just between the forwards) had never happened before during the last few years. There was a clear improvement in the teams' ability to control possession, drag the opposition around and cut them open with passing moves when Anderson and Cleverley played together in the CM.

Wait now, Fletcher and Carrick or just Fletch? Carrick didn't start a league game before City (he didn't start against them either) and only started his first against Swansea in mid November, he came into the team (on a regular basis) after tactics were purposely changed.

Pro. F

Giggsy11 wrote: »

But how can we blame Carrick for not dominating the possession playing 4-5-1 when he averaged more than 90% is almost all games? There is something wrong and it is not only with Carrick?

Carrick only problem (which is big enough) is he is not good enough when under pressure but his short passing was never a problem. If anything Carrick contributes immensely to our possession game, just that he can't carry the ball forward when pressed, which he relies on his midfield partner to do.

By 90% I assume you are referring to his passing accuracy. Imo passing accuracy is a terrible stat for trying to judge how a player is doing on the ball. Yes it can show you that he is not passing it away, but it does not show many important things.

For example, a CM who hides from the ball when the opposition are pressing up the pitch, who only shows for it when he isn't being closed down and who only passes forward when he is in space will have a good passing accuracy stat and still can have a good forward passing %. But that CM is not helping the team to keep possession effectively. He is not giving the defence a proper reliable out ball to bypass the opposition pressure. He is not negating the opposition pressure by taking his markers out of the game. And so he is not usefully contributing to the team when in possession. All CMs have to be contributing to the team, like I describe, when in possession imo.

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Agree with the first bit, we can't play pass and move for many reasons.
Re second, Carrick short passing is not the weak link, if anything after his defensive side, that is his biggest asset. He plays safe passes more often and relies on his partner to do the attacking part.

Short passing which can only be done when given time and space on the ball is not much of an asset for a CM. Still being able to do that short passing while being closed down is an essential CM skill. Carrick can not do the short passing link up play when the opposition are pressing high up the pitch.

Giggsy11 wrote: »

The way we were exposed defensively if any forward had half decent day we would have conceded few goals. First 3 games were exciting (also against Bolton where Carrick played) but we were very exposed at the back and after City game there is no way SAF would have gone with same all out attack tactics again.

As I said to DM-ICE, the change from such good passing work by the midfield back to the substandard stuff that we have usually played came about before the City defeat. It came about as soon as Carrick and Fletcher started playing after Clev's injury. The teams' defensive focus increased after the City game, but that was a separate change from what the team were doing in possession.

Giggsy11 wrote: »

I agree with this, it was just to point out "ability to retain possession" part.

Well you can read that as "ability to retain possession effectively" then. It's hard to communicate about these types of complex ideas and subtle differences sometimes.

spirit_77

anyone know how they are doing against the mighty longford town?

Mitch Connor

1-0 at half time, Mats Dhaeli with the goal - a nice solo effort apparently.

Milk Cup side won 8-0 against Revo Express. Lost against Tyrone yesterday so need a big win tomorrow and some handy results elsewhere to have a shot at the title.

shrewdness

spirit_77 wrote: »

anyone know how they are doing against the mighty longford town?

Winning 1-0, Half Time.

DM_7

Pro. F wrote: »

As I said to DM-ICE, the change from such good passing work by the midfield back to the substandard stuff that we have usually played came about before the City defeat. It came about as soon as Carrick and Fletcher started playing after Clev's injury. The teams' defensive focus increased after the City game, but that was a separate change from what the team were doing in possession.

See above Carrick wasn't even playing. Probably best to exclude Bolton where he came on early as a sub, played well and United won playing good football.

Pro. F

DM-ICE wrote: »

Wait now, Fletcher and Carrick or just Fletch? Carrick didn't start a league game before City (he didn't start against them either) and only started his first against Swansea in mid November, he came into the team (on a regular basis) after tactics were purposely changed.

He started the games against Benfica and Basel and he played for half an hour in the game against Chelsea. So yep, Fletcher and Carrick. Also, there is still the evidence of all the years previous when the team didn't move the ball as slickly as they did with Cleverley and Anderson in the centre.

Pro. F

DM-ICE wrote: »

Probably best to exclude Bolton where he came on early as a sub, played well and United won playing good football.

Bolton were an absolute shambles. Not every game that United play well in mean that the midfield passing is super slick.

IamtheWalrus

SAFStandBlog ‏@UtdWeekly
Manchester United will make an offer of €40m for Lucas Moura. [Lance] #MUFC

MagicMarker

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

SAFStandBlog ‏@UtdWeekly
Manchester United will make an offer of €40m for Lucas Moura. [Lance] #MUFC

Who is that?

shrewdness

Paulo Freitas ‏@Cynegeticus
'Lance!' now reporting that #MUFC will make a final offer of €40m for L.Moura & offer him a 5-year contract. They think SPFC may accept it.

kryogen

Would anyone think that Casemiro (Henrique) might be worth going for if the club are over in SPFC looking to buy a player?

Tough tackler, can play in a two man midfield and is useful going forward too. His is tenacious also which we lack in the middle

kryogen

Would also cost less then Lucas as he is not a flair player

DM_7

Pro. F wrote: »

He started the games against Benfica and Basel and he played for half an hour in the game against Chelsea. So yep, Fletcher and Carrick. Also, there is still the evidence of all the years previous when the team didn't move the ball as slickly as they did with Cleverley and Anderson in the centre.

Not great examples to be honest:
-He played against Basel in a crazy three all, united still played open football that day.

-Benfica where tactics were clearly different for an away game in the Champions league with a completely different team where United went for experience, Giggs, Park, Fletch all played purposely to play a different way.

-Comes on against Chelsea. Game was still very open after he came on.

Do you really believe that if Cleverley was available SAF would have allowed the really open, slick game to continue after the chances United gave up against Chelsea and the battering from City?

Considering the positioning of Anderson and Cleverley up the field was a key part of that play the answer is a simple No. He would have pulled them back and told them to stay more compact, solid and if they couldn't do they would be out of the team, fit or not. Cleverley being left out when he returned from injury points to that.

I say it again, personnel was not the only reason for the change in how United played. The biggest reason was a change in tactics as directed by the manager.

Pro. F wrote: »

Bolton were an absolute shambles. Not every game that United play well in mean that the midfield passing is super slick.

Yes, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea were not shambolic at all.

IamtheWalrus

MagicMarker wrote: »

Who is that?

Some Brazilian site called Lance. Most likely BS. I bet the actual fee will be in the 20m region.

Professional Griefer

shrewdness wrote: »

Paulo Freitas ‏@Cynegeticus
'Lance!' now reporting that #MUFC will make a final offer of €40m for L.Moura & offer him a 5-year contract. They think SPFC may accept it.

Whenever I see posts saying that Lance are reporting something, I can't help but picture this guy talking about tranfers.

shrewdness

Lance apparently now reporting Utd will offer him £130k per week, he's on 10k at the minute.

IamtheWalrus

shrewdness wrote: »

Lance apparently now reporting Utd will offer him £130k per week, he's on 10k at the minute.

We can safely say that Lance doesn't know what he is talking about so.

Pro. F

DM-ICE wrote: »

Not great examples to be honest:
-He played against Basel in a crazy three all, united still played open football that day.

-Benfica where tactics were clearly different for an away game in the Champions league with a completely different team where United went for experience, Giggs, Park, Fletch all played purposely to play a different way.

-Comes on against Chelsea. Game was still very open after he came on.

You are mixing up open football with effective control and use of possession through good passing and movement from the midfield. The passing and movement from the midfield was of a much lower standard for all those games I mentioned than for the games where Clev and Anderson were in there together.

DM-ICE wrote: »

Do you really believe that if Cleverley was available SAF would have allowed the really open, slick game to continue after the chances United gave up against Chelsea and the battering from City?

Considering the positioning of Anderson and Cleverley up the field was a key part of that play the answer is a simple No. He would have pulled them back and told them to stay more compact, solid and if they couldn't do they would be out of the team, fit or not. Cleverley being left out when he returned from injury points to that.

I say it again, personnel was not the only reason for the change in how United played. The biggest reason was a change in tactics as directed by the manager.

The key part of it was not the positioning of Cleverley and Anderson, it was that they didn't track runs properly into the defensive third of the pitch. Many times they were in decent positions about 40 yards out from our goal but just let runners go past them. That is because they are not very reliable defensively. Both of them need to be beside a proper defensively reliable CM.

As I have said countless times before, the Cleverley Anderson partnership was flawed because neither of them is defensively reliable and you need at least one defensively reliable CM in there. I have not denied that. The only thing that the Cleverley Anderson partnership proves is that the team can be very slick in possession when there are two CMs in there who are both comfortable on the ball. Not one who is comfortable on the ball and one of Fletcher or Carrick who are not. That slickness dried up as soon as Cleverley/Anderson changed to two from Anderson/Fletch/Carrick/Giggs/Scholes. That's why I say we should buy a defensive CM who is of a better standard on the ball.

Cleverley was clearly left out of the team because he had had some sort of falling out with Fergie. Or did Fergie leave our only other fit, properly skilled creative central midfielder on the bench when we were chasing the game against Wigan and City and play on with the very fatigued Scholes and the very fatigued and not that good Giggs because they were better defensively?

shrewdness

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

We can safely say that Lance doesn't know what he is talking about so.

Sounds like complete nonsense! Must be the Brazilian equivalent of the Daily Fail.

Mgoraf

They are reporting 130k per month, not per week.

shrewdness

Mgoraf wrote: »

They are reporting 130k per month, not per week.

Oh right, that would make a lot more sense.

Mgoraf

Still think the fee is a bit much, plus I'd rather we spent the cash elsewhere. (ie on someone we actually need)

OctavarIan

shrewdness wrote: »

Sounds like complete nonsense! Must be the Brazilian equivalent of the Daily Fail.

They're not. I get why people hate on the Daily Mail, but not when it comes to transfer stories. Pretty much every paper and news outlet is garbage for football during the summer. Even The Guardian (the paper that typical Daily Mail haters like to fellate) is known to publish absolute nonsense.

Hope we get Moura, he can do a job when Young disappears after the first few weeks.

kryogen

So, no takers for Casemiro then?

Mikeyt086

My only fear about signing Lucas is I know how some football fans are absolute muppets and will expect him to go straight into the team and be one of the best players in the league immediately. If he takes time to adapt (which he almost certainly will) there will be idiots calling him a flop.

Lucas Moura is 19, should we sign him then he will be a project that could result in us having a proper world beater in a few years. That's why I don't think Nani will be sold.