Manchester United Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2016 - Mod Warning link in OP 20/3

Martypants1

RobertKK wrote: »

I just want two proven goalscorers to go with Martial in a top 3 upfront.

Van Persie was the last real in form striker we had, and that was in the time of Fergie.

Rashford has an air of Martial off him, seems very calm as a person but he is too young still at 18 to count on, but he could be the biggest prospect from the underage squad.
I actually prefer Rashford over Rooney. So far, Rashford has been more clinical with his chances, and if he was to keep his current form, then 4th would be a possibility for United.
Wouldn't mind him being tried on the right as that is such a weak side for us. Lingard can be great or a miss, and prefer Mata more central behind the striker.

The biggest problem for whoever is our manager next summer is to make the goal drought disappear.
Currently of the top 10 teams in the PL, only Stoke have scored less at 34 goals, United have 38.
Spurs have scored 56 goals which is the most.
Spurs are the only team to have conceded less goals than us.

We would have a good team if we added proven goal threats to our team, Martial should improve, hopefully Memphis does too, but 1 or 2 more proven goal scoring (+20 goals) would have us challenging again for major honours.
I would like 2...current team lacks enough goals. Maybe some of it is the managers fault, but one thing one use to associate with United was lethal strikers, at the moment Martial is our best, Rooney for the first half of the season couldn't have been worse, got form then injured...Rashford we have to wait and see, but he seems better with the better quality players around him, and dare I say it...what we had hoped Welbeck to be, but he is gone due not to taking his chances when at United.
Ibrahimovic on a free and then for right wing, Gareth Bale would be the man.
That would be a handful for any team, the talk is Real Madrid are set to offer Bale €400,000 a week.
We need GOALS...

Our defence needs fixing. We need a new CB and a new midfielder that's combative but can beat players also. People can say we have DDG and it's pointless saying that without DDG we would concede so many goals but DDG is making world class save after world class save.

Liverpool are not an amazing side in attack yet DDG made 4 or 5 world class saves.

Mou will sort our defence in the summer anyways.

Billy86

Korat wrote: »

Ahh come on it's not like he was tripping over his legs in the box or blazing sitters over the bar... like a certain Arsenal player used do regularly. :P

You leave Francis Fox in the Box Jeffers out of this!! :mad:

Manutd_4life

What do you guys think about Lingard???

I don't think his future lies here at United. I could see him joining a mid table club, maybe Stoke City or Palace. He will probably be here another season. I wonder if Jose would like him or not

Billy86

Manutd_4life wrote: »

What do you guys think about Lingard???

I don't think his future lies here at United. I could see him joining a mid table club, maybe Stoke City or Palace. He will probably be here another season. I wonder if Jose would like him or not

You're probably right, but to me he is one of those guys we don't really have enough of at the club in more recent years (or perhaps more likely, just have not been giving a go to) - a solid, hard working, smart enough player who knows his limitations*, is willing to put his head down, and contribute. Nobody will ever accuse him of being the next Paul Scholes or Roy Keane, but he knows what works for him and he's using it to the best of his abilities.

*That's a massively (edit) underrated thing to have by the way - while they were all very talented defenders it's something that Brown, O'Shea and even Gary Neville made careers off of. I would far, far rather someone with 6/10 talent that knows they have 6/10 talent than someone with 7/10 talent who thinks they are 10/10.

Lord TSC

Grand squad player. Shouldn't be getting starts half the games he is. We deseprately need a top level player on he right wing, and Lingard will never be that player.

Liam O

Lingard could have a niche as a faster Park style player but i don't think he's as intelligent as Park.

Pro. F

It's far too early to be writing off Lingard at this stage.

He is 23. He was out half of last season injured and wasn't given regular starts for the remainder of the season (while on loan at Derby). This season he has been playing in LVG's mess and he has still done okay. He's got decent skill, good work-rate and discipline and has very good movement off the ball.

Assuming the next manager plays some system with wingers (and not 532 or something) then we'll need to buy at least one new winger, but that's no reason to get rid of Lingard. Lingard can can be competition/back-up for any new, currently better, winger we might sign. Get rid of Young or Valencia if we need to get rid of a winger; keep the youth product who is coming along nicely.

DM_7

Lingard, according to SAF was meant to be a midfield player rather than a winger and his size was going to mean he developed later. He has performed well out wide this season imo but as a third midfield player he could also do well.

His discipline as well as technical ability should appeal to any manager. He could go onto have a Darren Fletcher career at United.

It would be foolish to move on players providing a strong contribution as a squad member. Especially one who has showed an ability to conjure up something special.

Liam O

DM_7 wrote: »

Lingard, according to SAF was meant to be a midfield player rather than a winger and his size was going to mean he developed later. He has performed well out wide this season imo but as a third midfield player he could also do well.

His discipline as well as technical ability should appeal to any manager. He could go onto have a Darren Fletcher career at United.

It would be foolish to move on players providing a strong contribution as a squad member. Especially one who has showed an ability to conjure up something special.

He was impressive against City but someone capable of dribbling with pace through the middle has been sorely needed. Anyone with any pace and directness would have looked good in that role. Overall I like Lingard as a squad option but he has obvious limitations that can be improved upon. I think Memphis is a better player and given the same opportunity he'd have shown more than Lingard.

A good versatile forward can always come in handy though so no problem with Lingard sticking around.

Cantona's Collars

Changes to be made to the stadium next year,regulations mean expansion of the disabled section and a loss of 3000 seats however the club is looking at expanding the stadium to hold up to 88,000.

http://www.espnfc.com/club/manchester-united/360/blog/post/2838728/old-trafford-set-to-expand-as-manchester-united

Martypants1

Lingard is a squad player at best. Squad players on the wings at Arsenal are Campbell, Ox, Iwobi (who looks great) & Ramsey.

Chelsea have Pedro, Oscar.

City have Navas and Nasri.

Lingard and Young are ****e options compared to all those 3.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

Martypants1 wrote: »

Lingard is a squad player at best. Squad players on the wings at Arsenal are Campbell, Ox, Iwobi (who looks great) & Ramsey.

Chelsea have Pedro, Oscar.

City have Navas and Nasri.

Lingard and Young are ****e options compared to all those 3.

Young has been excellent when needed. Remember he kept di Maria out of the team. He's probably not champions league winning level but definitely a great prem option.

bucketybuck

Pheonix10 wrote: »

Young has been excellent when needed. Remember he kept di Maria out of the team. He's probably not champions league winning level but definitely a great prem option.

Young gets about 2 goals a year, he has 5 goals total from the last four seasons. Call him excellent in very specific circumstances if you want but players like him won't win us any Champions league titles. And Lingard won't either.

I don't think anybody is saying release him on a free transfer but Lingard has 29 appearances this season already, if thats the level of player we want as a regular in our first team then we may get used to 5th place.

brinty

zerks wrote:

Changes to be made to the stadium next year,regulations mean expansion of the disabled section and a loss of 3000 seats however the club is looking at expanding the stadium to hold up to 88,000.

You'd imagine they'll do the other quadrants before extending the k/Charlton stand

jayo26

brinty wrote: »

You'd imagine they'll do the other quadrants before extending the k/Charlton stand

Aint they problems touching that side of stadium because of railway lines

Manutd_4life

It's been absolutely forever since we've even heard about Young. What's up with him nowadays? Surely he still isn't injured?

A lot of people here give the man stick during games but he was one of our brightest players last season and I would love to see him play on the wing a couple of times before the season ends

Vic Vinegar

Manutd_4life wrote: »

It's been absolutely forever since we've even heard about Young. What's up with him nowadays? Surely he still isn't injured?

A lot of people here give the man stick during games but he was one of our brightest players last season and I would love to see him play on the wing a couple of times before the season ends

He's pretty much ready for action again as far as I'm aware.

brinty

jayo26 wrote:

Aint they problems touching that side of stadium because of railway lines

Think that's to expand the main stand and that's why they were going to do the quadrants first

Pro. F

Martypants1 wrote: »

Lingard is a squad player at best. Squad players on the wings at Arsenal are Campbell, Ox, Iwobi (who looks great) & Ramsey.

Chelsea have Pedro, Oscar.

City have Navas and Nasri.

Lingard and Young are ****e options compared to all those 3.

Lingard is easily good enough to be a squad player at a team aiming for the top of the PL. And he is still young, so he will improve. If our squad options aren't good enough on the wing then just buy some new players and move on Young and Valencia if we need to free up wages. There's no good reason to get rid of Lingard.

Ramsey is not a squad player at Arsenal, he is high up the pecking order. I'd easily take Lingard as a winger ahead of Nasri, Campbell and Oscar.

Pro. F

bucketybuck wrote: »

I don't think anybody is saying release him on a free transfer but Lingard has 29 appearances this season already, if thats the level of player we want as a regular in our first team then we may get used to 5th place.

What's the point of this observation? Do you think there is anybody saying that bringing in a better winger and giving him games ahead of Lingard would be a mistake?

Martypants1

Pro. F wrote: »

Lingard is easily good enough to be a squad player at a team aiming for the top of the PL. And he is still young, so he will improve. If our squad options aren't good enough on the wing then just buy some new players and move on Young and Valencia if we need to free up wages. There's no good reason to get rid of Lingard.

Ramsey is not a squad player at Arsenal, he is high up the pecking order. I'd easily take Lingard as a winger ahead of Nasri, Campbell and Oscar.

Ramsey is a squad player. Wilshere -- Cazorla -- Coq would be first choice midfielders and then Sanchez and Ozil.

Lingard is a worse finisher than Welbeck as well.

He's a winger who can't beat his man one on one and can't cross for ****.

He's no more squad player quality than Cleverley or Welbeck.

Juan8

Manutd_4life wrote: »

What do you guys think about Lingard???

I don't think his future lies here at United. I could see him joining a mid table club, maybe Stoke City or Palace. He will probably be here another season. I wonder if Jose would like him or not

I think hes terrible myself and the way he starts so often for us really shows where we are

Pro. F

Martypants1 wrote: »

Ramsey is a squad player. Wilshere -- Cazorla -- Coq would be first choice midfielders and then Sanchez and Ozil.

Ramsey is ahead of Wilshere in the pecking order at Arsenal. Ramsey is a better player than Wilshere. Ramsey has often been in their strongest teams when fit.

If you want to pretend that Ramsey is a squad player because Jack Wilshere exists, then you are just misusing the term "squad player."

Martypants1 wrote: »

Lingard is a worse finisher than Welbeck as well.

Sure he is.

Martypants1 wrote: »

He's a winger who can't beat his man one on one and can't cross for ****.

His crossing is okay. His dribbling is okay. His passing and link-up play are good. His movement off the ball is good. His first touch is good. He is relatively quick, has good stamina and works hard. You are wrong in your assessment of his ability.

Martypants1 wrote: »

He's no more squad player quality than Cleverley or Welbeck.

They would also be good squad players.

Jayop

I don't think some people understand the concept of squad players

Giggsy11

bucketybuck wrote: »

Young gets about 2 goals a year, he has 5 goals total from the last four seasons. Call him excellent in very specific circumstances if you want but players like him won't win us any Champions league titles. And Lingard won't either.

I don't think anybody is saying release him on a free transfer but Lingard has 29 appearances this season already, if thats the level of player we want as a regular in our first team then we may get used to 5th place.

Lingard has played just 2157 mins in total (that's around 23 full games) and just 1122 mins in the league, that's around 12.5 games.

He is squad player and is playing like one. We don't have good right wingers so relying on squad player who is doing better than others to fill in.

Also you talked about Young's lack of goals and at the same time dismiss Lingard who has decent goal scoring return. 4 league goals in 1122 mins in a very good return for a midfielder especially in Van Gaal's team. Lingard won't be the reason why we will finish 5th.

If anything he is doing fine job as a back up. Memphis and Mata were our first choice and now that our first choice are gash, back up player who is playing better than first choice is used. IMO that's what back up players are there for.

Also he has scored 5 goals and 4 assists this season. That's goal or assist every 2 and half game. Very decent return from a back up player.

Lingard is a very good squad player and is used as one. Is he getting more mins now? Yes that's because first choice players are playing way below their level.

Richardson played 24 times in our best season (2006-07), that didn't make us poor team or made us settle for lower position.

There are many players who made more than 20 appearances in the recent past and all of them were squad players. Players like O'Shea, Gibson, Evans and few others.

bucketybuck

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Richardson played 24 times in our best season (2006-07), that didn't make us poor team or made us settle for lower position.

There are many players who made more than 20 appearances in the recent past and all of them were squad players. Players like O'Shea, Gibson, Evans and few others.

Richardson played 12 times that season. He played more in the seasons leading up to that, along with the likes of Miller, Bellion and Smith, and its no surprise that those were probably our worst seasons of the 00's.

It says everything that you are comparing Lingard and his 4 goals to the likes of Richardson and Young because that truly is the level we are talking about here. People keep repeating the squad player excuse, and we all know that he is in effect a squad player, I know he is a squad player and I would be happy for him to be a squad player. The problem is that when a limited squad player is playing every game its basically a barometer of our teams fortunes, and when people are happy for a squad player to be playing every game its a measure of our teams expectations. Kieran Richardson was a squad player, the problem is that we all know what happens when the likes of Richardson get regular gametime, just as we all know what happened when we replaced the likes of Richardson with real quality players.

Lingard is another Cleverley. There will be some who delude themselves into thinking that he is good enough for a top team, but the simple fact is that the sooner the club stop settling for players of that level the sooner they will get back to winning titles.

Mitch Connor

Who is happy, really, for Lingard to be playing every game? Who wants him to be first choice over the coming season?

This feels like an argument that doesn't actually exist.

United will never, imo, have a squad of 22 or so world class or top level players. Players like Lingard are required to make up the numbers, so to speak. HE is, imo, just about good enough to be a squad player, rotating in to give others a rest.

Successful United sides have had players like him in the past, and if they are successful they will have them in the future too. If Lingard is the baramoter of the quality of the first choice United player medium term, then yes there is a problem. But no one is saying they want that to be the case, no one is arguing for that.

brinty

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Lingard has played just 2157 mins in total (that's around 23 full games) and just 1122 mins in the league, that's around 12.5 games.

He is squad player and is playing like one. We don't have good right wingers so relying on squad player who is doing better than others to fill in.

Also you talked about Young's lack of goals and at the same time dismiss Lingard who has decent goal scoring return. 4 league goals in 1122 mins in a very good return for a midfielder especially in Van Gaal's team. Lingard won't be the reason why we will finish 5th.

If anything he is doing fine job as a back up. Memphis and Mata were our first choice and now that our first choice are gash, back up player who is playing better than first choice is used. IMO that's what back up players are there for.

Also he has scored 5 goals and 4 assists this season. That's goal or assist every 2 and half game. Very decent return from a back up player.

Lingard is a very good squad player and is used as one. Is he getting more mins now? Yes that's because first choice players are playing way below their level.

Richardson played 24 times in our best season (2006-07), that didn't make us poor team or made us settle for lower position.

There are many players who made more than 20 appearances in the recent past and all of them were squad players. Players like O'Shea, Gibson, Evans and few others.

Jesus mate you're comparing apples to banana's

In 2006 and 2007 this team had some great young players (Rooney and Ronaldo), established players (Ferdinand, Scholes, Carrick, Vidic, Evra, Heinze, Van der saar etc) in the team. I could've played in that team and contributed..

Richardson was a perma sub who never played close to the same number of games Lingard has.

Lets not forget that Lingard has been almost ever present from December onwards.

I take your point on his being a back up and performing better than those ahead of him but if we start making the point that his being the caliber of player in our first team is, then how far have we really fallen.

The idea of a squad player is a guy who can fill in and the level of the team doesn't drop. Phil Neville and John O'Shea were those types of players. That is all Lingard should be..

Maybe I'm grabbing the wrong end of the stick on this???

Mitch Connor

brinty wrote: »

Jesus mate you're comparing apples to banana's

In 2006 and 2007 this team had some great young players (Rooney and Ronaldo), established players (Ferdinand, Scholes, Carrick, Vidic, Evra, Heinze, Van der saar etc) in the team. I could've played in that team and contributed..

Richardson was a perma sub who never played close to the same number of games Lingard has.

Lets not forget that Lingard has been almost ever present from December onwards.

I take your point on his being a back up and performing better than those ahead of him but if we start making the point that his being the caliber of player in our first team is, then how far have we really fallen.

The idea of a squad player is a guy who can fill in and the level of the team doesn't drop. Phil Neville and John O'Shea were those types of players. That is all Lingard should be..

Maybe I'm grabbing the wrong end of the stick on this???

But there isn't a single person on here that thinks the quality of the current United side is good enough in general. People will agree Lingard is current playing too significant a role in the side, but unfortunately that is also because he is actually performing better than other options, consistently. So while his level may not be good enough in general, it is good enough for the current United side.

Lingard is good enough to be a squad player. It isn't his fault, nor desired by any fans, that the quality of United in general has him in an elevated position. Similar to Cleverley - he was good enough to be a very good squad player for us, but because Fergie ignored the midfield for years he became a more significant first team player by default. The pressure this put on him, and the fact he became a signifier or sorts for the overall problems in midfield (not of his doing) were big contributers to him 'failing' at United. If he had two or three first choice players in front of him of the correct quality then he would have had a better environment to grow in. Lingard can, and should (imo) remain a part of the squad, but he should be third or fourth choice behind some top quality players.

bucketybuck

brinty wrote: »

The idea of a squad player is a guy who can fill in and the level of the team doesn't drop. Phil Neville and John O'Shea were those types of players. That is all Lingard should be..

I think people fall into the trap of allowing "squad" players to be just good enough, as long as they are solid and do a job and grab the odd goal then they are fine, they're just squad players after all.

We can do better than that. Wes Brown was a squad player, Nicky Butt was a squad player, Park Ji Sun was a squad player, Javier Hernandez, Lee Sharp, Phil Neville, Henning Berg, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was a squad player and all of them were on a different level of quality to the likes of Lingard, Richardson and Cleverley.

sReq | uTeK

bucketybuck wrote: »

I think people fall into the trap of allowing "squad" players to be just good enough, as long as they are solid and do a job and grab the odd goal then they are fine, they're just squad players after all.

We can do better than that. Wes Brown was a squad player, Nicky Butt was a squad player, Park Ji Sun was a squad player, Javier Hernandez, Lee Sharp, Phil Neville, Henning Berg, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was a squad player and all of them were on a different level of quality to the likes of Lingard, Richardson and Cleverley.

The problem is a squad player is meant to be just good enough, or a little better and that is what Lingard is, you can't have a team of 11 world beaters sitting on the bench. It just would not work and would do more harm than good.

It has always been this way at united, a strong first 11 with 1-2 good quality subs followed by a few squad players and youth. It's a balance a lot of managers seem to strive for. Footballers tend to come with big ego's and the last thing a manager wants is big egos on a bench disrupting his squad.

12.5 games players in the league out of 31 is squad player level, for what he provides in those 12.5 games I don't think he's been anywhere near the worst on the pitch, and for that reason I'm fine with him getting 30% game time year on year and the rest around the cups.

Giggsy11

bucketybuck wrote: »

Richardson played 12 times that season. He played more in the seasons leading up to that, along with the likes of Miller, Bellion and Smith, and its no surprise that those were probably our worst seasons of the 00's.

Richardson played 24 times in 2006-07. If you are considering only starts then you should have done the same thing to Lingard.

It says everything that you are comparing Lingard and his 4 goals to the likes of Richardson and Young because that truly is the level we are talking about here. People keep repeating the squad player excuse, and we all know that he is in effect a squad player, I know he is a squad player and I would be happy for him to be a squad player. The problem is that when a limited squad player is playing every game its basically a barometer of our teams fortunes, and when people are happy for a squad player to be playing every game its a measure of our teams expectations. Kieran Richardson was a squad player, the problem is that we all know what happens when the likes of Richardson get regular gametime, just as we all know what happened when we replaced the likes of Richardson with real quality players.

He is a squad player and he is playing every game because first team players are not doing their job and his performance is better than those first team players. Nothing to worry about, next season when we sign better player, Lingard will be back to his squad role where he won't start every game. If the likes of Depay, Mata steps up and play to their level then Lingard wouldn't have started that many games.

I don't think anyone is happy with Lingard playing every game but they are closer to reality than fantasy land. Reality is our first choice players are not playing well so Lingard is getting extended run of games. Simple as that.

Lingard is another Cleverley. There will be some who delude themselves into thinking that he is good enough for a top team, but the simple fact is that the sooner the club stop settling for players of that level the sooner they will get back to winning titles.

Or people are not deluded enough and know that we can't have squad full of world class players, we need someone who is happy with bit part role.

Yeah, club relying on Lingards is what stopping them from winning, nothing to do with incompetent manager.

All these "we are relying on Lingard" is just clutching straws. We are not.

Giggsy11

brinty wrote: »

Jesus mate you're comparing apples to banana's

In 2006 and 2007 this team had some great young players (Rooney and Ronaldo), established players (Ferdinand, Scholes, Carrick, Vidic, Evra, Heinze, Van der saar etc) in the team. I could've played in that team and contributed..

You are contradicting here, we had great team so back ups and squad role should have been great players as according to you the level of team shouldn't drop with squad players. But we had Richardsons and few other average players filling squad role.

Richardson was a perma sub who never played close to the same number of games Lingard has.

Lets not forget that Lingard has been almost ever present from December onwards.

Richardson in 2005-06 started 24 games and 12 games as sub.
In 2006-07, started 12 games and 12 games as sub.

The reason why Lingard is ever present is because of Depay and Mata. Nothing to do with him being first choice player.

I take your point on his being a back up and performing better than those ahead of him but if we start making the point that his being the caliber of player in our first team is, then how far have we really fallen.

This is the simple case of wrong planning. Depay and Mata were our first choice players and once they started performing badly, we have to rely on squad players till they find the form. If they can't then we have to address the issue in the next transfer window. If Lingard plays every game in 2016-17 season then it's time to worry, but for now he is just squad player who is playing because of how first choice players are playing.

The idea of a squad player is a guy who can fill in and the level of the team doesn't drop. Phil Neville and John O'Shea were those types of players. That is all Lingard should be..

Maybe I'm grabbing the wrong end of the stick on this???

if that's the case then they wouldn't have been squad players. They are called back up players/ Squad players for a reason, they aren't as good as first choice.

It's all easy to say with O'Shea the level didn't drop but it did. Replacing Evra with O'Shea as LB means our LB level dropped significantly. Same when we replaced Neville with O'Shea. I wouldn't even talk about replacing Rio and Vida. So when O'Shea played in any position the level dropped as our defense was Neville, Evra, Rio and Vida.

Same with Neville, when he started he replaced Irwin as LB. That's a big drop in the level.

Everytime squad player plays, level drops. But if the overall quality of the team is better then it doesn't matter. We shouldn't be picking on likes of Lingard for playing every game, we should be criticising Rooney, Mata, Depay for being so poor this season.

I can go on and give lot more examples but I hope I made my point clear.

Rossi IRL

Lingard is not good enough to be a starter but id certainly rather have him over young/valencia as a squad player.

Giggsy11

bucketybuck wrote: »

I think people fall into the trap of allowing "squad" players to be just good enough, as long as they are solid and do a job and grab the odd goal then they are fine, they're just squad players after all.

We can do better than that. Wes Brown was a squad player, Nicky Butt was a squad player, Park Ji Sun was a squad player, Javier Hernandez, Lee Sharp, Phil Neville, Henning Berg, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was a squad player and all of them were on a different level of quality to the likes of Lingard, Richardson and Cleverley.

Squad players will be just good enough. There isn't a squad in the world where squad player is as good as first choice player.

There was lot of gap between Wes Brown and Vidic/Rio.
Nicky Butt and Keane.
Park and whoever he replaced in the attacking 3.

Out of the list, Solskjaer is the only player where the level didn't drop too much when squad player played instead of first choice player.

Kalel

You can't even compare Squad players from the last couple of seasons with Squad Players from the Fergie era. We are rubbish at the moment and the likes of Lingard are actually decent Squad players when you look at the overall team and how they have performed. You cannot compare to teams of the past where when a player rotated in he was playing in a confident solid team, when a player rotates in now he is playing in a nervous weak a$$ team.
Lets judge these Squad players when we have a proper functioning team that they can rotate into.

KH25

Rossi IRL wrote: »

Lingard is not good enough to be a starter but id certainly rather have him over young/valencia as a squad player.

I've no issue with keeping Young as I think he's good enough as a squad player. Not a world beater, but a solid player. I'd let Valencia go. As a winger he's become completely ineffective and he just isn't a right back. His defensive positioning is not good enough.

bucketybuck

Giggsy11 wrote: »

Squad players will be just good enough. There isn't a squad in the world where squad player is as good as first choice player.

There was lot of gap between Wes Brown and Vidic/Rio.
Nicky Butt and Keane.
Park and whoever he replaced in the attacking 3.

Out of the list, Solskjaer is the only player where the level didn't drop too much when squad player played instead of first choice player.

I never said that the back up players were as good as the first choice players, of course they won't be, but that still does not mean that the squad players have to be "just good enough". Whats wrong with having quality squad players just as we did every time we were a successful team? Because just as there is a gap between Wes Brown and Rio, there is also a gap between Wes Brown and Paddy McNair. There was a gap between Nicky Butt and Roy Keane, but there is also a quality gap between Nicky Butt and a Tom Cleverley. Park Ji Sung was no Ronaldo, but damn sure Lingard is no Park Ji Sung.

There are different levels of quality and just as we want the best in the first team we should also want as good as we can get as the back ups, as the squad options. In my opinion we can do better in both areas.

Lingard is a grand player, I'm sure he will make a career for himself. If that career is at United for any extended length of time then in my opinion it will reflect on our level of success.

sky88

I feel Lingard is the almost the definition of a squad player at the top level of the PL. He does nothing special but is solid, tracks back, can cross etc.

I dont think anyone wants him to start but a decent squad player like young has been for the last few years. Hes 24 this year so i donnt think he will ever be better then he is but i would not get rid of him yet.

Giggsy11

bucketybuck wrote: »

I never said that the back up players were as good as the first choice players, of course they won't be, but that still does not mean that the squad players have to be "just good enough". Whats wrong with having quality squad players just as we did every time we were a successful team? Because just as there is a gap between Wes Brown and Rio, there is also a gap between Wes Brown and Paddy McNair. There was a gap between Nicky Butt and Roy Keane, but there is also a quality gap between Nicky Butt and a Tom Cleverley. Park Ji Sung was no Ronaldo, but damn sure Lingard is no Park Ji Sung.

There are different levels of quality and just as we want the best in the first team we should also want as good as we can get as the back ups, as the squad options. In my opinion we can do better in both areas.

Lingard is a grand player, I'm sure he will make a career for himself. If that career is at United for any extended length of time then in my opinion it will reflect on our level of success.

You are comparing the career of players with players who are just starting their careers.

Ofcourse Brown is lot better than McNair (who isn't even third choice) but how good was Brown when he made his debut? Why not compare him to Jones and how good was Brown when he was at Jones' age?

Same with Park. Where was he when he was at Lingard's age? He scored just 6 goals playing in Dutch league.

You are comparing whole careers with someone who is just finding their feet at top level. Ofcourse they will look worse now. Not to forget these players played under manager who knew what he was doing and quality players to up their level also.

It's good to have quality squad players and if Lingard plays as many games as Park and win few trophies along the way then he will be considered as very good squad player.

Players at their peak won't be happy just to be back up players (players who are quality squad players) and not everyone is master of rotating squad like Fergie.

Your Airbag

Murmurs of Old Trafford getting a capacity expansion

An extra tier of around 7,500 seats above the Sir Bobby Charlton stand is being considered. It would be of a similar size to the second tier in the Sir Alex Ferguson stand opposite, although the main stand would not have a third level.

The capacity will then be around 80,000, with a further option to build two more quadrants which, if they replicate existing ones on the other side of the ground, would boost the capacity by 4,000 each, swelling Old Trafford to an 88,000 capacity -- the second biggest in Europe after Camp Nou. Any increase would also allow for more executive facilities, which bring in so much more income than normal seats.

http://www.espnfc.com/club/manchester-united/360/blog/post/2838728/old-trafford-set-to-expand-as-manchester-united

bucketybuck

Giggsy11 wrote: »

You are comparing the career of players with players who are just starting their careers.

I'm making a judgement on a 23 year old, its just the internet so I'm happy to do so. I'm watching a player and not seeing any of the quality that I feel we should be demanding.

To be honest, I'm not that invested in this because its all just another Tom Cleverley, plenty of us made the same call about his quality while others were keen to make excuses for him. Cleverley wasn't good enough and time proved that, I'd just prefer we didn't waste the same length of time coming to the same conclusion regarding Lingard.

People are welcome to think otherwise and back him because he is a United player, but I'm happy to give my opinion now.

Pro. F

sky88 wrote: »

I feel Lingard is the almost the definition of a squad player at the top level of the PL. He does nothing special but is solid, tracks back, can cross etc.

I dont think anyone wants him to start but a decent squad player like young has been for the last few years. Hes 24 this year so i donnt think he will ever be better then he is but i would not get rid of him yet.

While I agree with the rest, just on the bolded bit: Players improve past the age of 23 (his birthday is in December) all the time. Provided he gets a decent amount of football, it would be extremely unusual if his game did not improve over the coming years. And that's before you take into account that his development was hindered last year by serious injury and that every player will improve if we get a good manager in.

Pro. F

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm making a judgement on a 23 year old, its just the internet so I'm happy to do so. I'm watching a player and not seeing any of the quality that I feel we should be demanding.

To be honest, I'm not that invested in this because its all just another Tom Cleverley, plenty of us made the same call about his quality while others were keen to make excuses for him. Cleverley wasn't good enough and time proved that, I'd just prefer we didn't waste the same length of time coming to the same conclusion regarding Lingard.

I would still be of the opinion that Cleverley is good enough to be a squad player at United. I would assume that you still think Nani and Rafael are good enough to be squad players at United; or do you think time has proven you wrong on those?

bucketybuck wrote: »

People are welcome to think otherwise and back him because he is a United player, but I'm happy to give my opinion now.

Yes, people are only backing him because he is a United player. It's not that they have a different opinion to you, it's that they have a more biased one than you.

Giggsy11

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm making a judgement on a 23 year old, its just the internet so I'm happy to do so. I'm watching a player and not seeing any of the quality that I feel we should be demanding.

To be honest, I'm not that invested in this because its all just another Tom Cleverley, plenty of us made the same call about his quality while others were keen to make excuses for him. Cleverley wasn't good enough and time proved that, I'd just prefer we didn't waste the same length of time coming to the same conclusion regarding Lingard.

People are welcome to think otherwise and back him because he is a United player, but I'm happy to give my opinion now.

Or he may do a Fletcher and have a good career.

Lingard is not a first choice player but he is a good squad player. You are not seeing any quality? Fine. I have no problem with him playing squad role as he is good enough to do that. More importantly he always gets into goal scoring positions. If we can work on his finishing then his goal return will increase significantly.

As it is, his contribution is fine enough for a squad player considering how **** we are as a team.

Giggsy11

Pro. F wrote: »

While I agree with the rest, just on the bolded bit: Players improve past the age of 23 (his birthday is in December) all the time. Provided he gets a decent amount of football, it would be extremely unusual if his game did not improve over the coming years. And that's before you take into account that his development was hindered last year by serious injury and that every player will improve if we get a good manager in.

Yeah, he has some good qualities. His off the ball movement is very good and the reason why he gets so many good chances. If he can work on his finishing then we will have very good squad player who is a goal threat from wide positions.

He has scored 5 goals and IIRC he hit woodwork 3 or 4 times. Not excusing his finishing efforts just that he gets into very good positions.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/transfer-window/romelu-lukaku-sparks-manchester-united-rumours-with-mourinho-comments-34580467.html?

Lukaku ya bould yoke ya!

Those comments sounds like he wants out! He mentions Jose too....

sky88

Pro. F wrote: »

While I agree with the rest, just on the bolded bit: Players improve past the age of 23 (his birthday is in December) all the time. Provided he gets a decent amount of football, it would be extremely unusual if his game did not improve over the coming years. And that's before you take into account that his development was hindered last year by serious injury and that every player will improve if we get a good manager in.

Sorry didnt expand on what i meant there. I meant i dont feel he will improve enough to make the starting 11 every week and will be one the fans want in the team.

Pro. F

sky88 wrote: »

Sorry didnt expand on what i meant there. I meant i dont feel he will improve enough to make the starting 11 every week and will be one the fans want in the team.

Fair enough. I think there's a chance he could become good enough to be a regular starter, but if not, as you say, he's still fine for a squad player as it stands.

Cookie_Dough

M!Ck^ wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/transfer-window/romelu-lukaku-sparks-manchester-united-rumours-with-mourinho-comments-34580467.html?

Lukaku ya bould yoke ya!

Those comments sounds like he wants out! He mentions Jose too....

I know it probably wouldn't be an issue for us but just out of curiosity, would he be considered homegrown?