He doesn't have and will never have Nani's magic, or Valencia's power. He doesn't have Nani's goalscoring or Valencia's decision-making, though he could conceivably develop those skills. It's not as if Nani and Valencia are standing still either - Nani's a year younger and Valencia the same age, and they're both currently playing at a higher level.
A. Young | Guardian: Medical today
- Thread starter Marcus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to talk about United's dreadful home defeat at the hands of Big Ange's Tottenham Hotspur. Should this have been the end of Ten Hag? How long does he actually have left? And does Nik finally want ETH out?!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
He doesn't have and will never have Nani's magic, or Valencia's power. He doesn't have Nani's goalscoring or Valencia's decision-making, though he could conceivably develop those skills. It's not as if Nani and Valencia are standing still either - Nani's a year younger and Valencia the same age, and they're both currently playing at a higher level.
apotheosis
O'Fortuna
He's also right-footed, and though he plays well on the left that means we'd still have no left-footed winger apart from Giggs.
Versatility is the key with Young i feel, he not only can cover both wings, i believe he is a viable alternative to play in the hole behind Berbatov, giving us a serious back up strikeforce to Roo/Hernandez.
Young on one side, Nani on the other and centrally one from Berba, Roo or Hernandez would also give us a pretty good 4-3-3 option, that i personally do not believe we have at the moment. Variety and adaptability of formations, as well as cover for Rooney and both wingers, available at an affordable price and great set piece delivery make Young an interesting proposition, and in my view we would be getting quite a bit of 'bang for our buck' so to speak.
Strange thing is i cannot see how Young would be any better in the hole than Nani would be. Nani offers everything Young would in that position and more imo, he is a better dribbler and being two footed would have the ability to go either side and still shoot competently from range.
amolbhatia50k
Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
The potential isn't there though. Nani and Valencia are far more talented.
Plechazunga
Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan
Strange thing is i cannot see how Young would be any better in the hole than Nani would be. Nani offers everything Young would in that position and more imo, he is a better dribbler and being two footed would have the ability to go either side and still shoot competently from range.
Discipline
Rooney1987
Full Member
Well I'll take your word for it.
What about Rodwell? What does he do? He looks like a thoroughbred, on the rare occasion he's let out the paddock. But then I sort of lose sight of him during the game.
Well i agree with you on Rodwell, i dont get what the fuss is all about either, hes another Jordan Henderson, ie ridiculously over rated.
Just dont understand all this hype and drooling over Rodwell. Average player.
Sigh feel like I've been through this a million times.
Just read through this if you can't see why so many of us rate him so highly at the age of 20 https://www.redcafe.net/f9/jack-rodwell-255390/
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,914
I don't get why Young is supposed to be a squad player when he can develop into a better player than Valencia and Nani, it's entirely possible because potential is there. And he isn't really a couple of tiers lower than Sanchez and Hazard, that's just ridiculous. He's so underrated here for some reason.
I like Young but I'm struggling to find an area that Young betters him in. He's a better passer I think, maybe has a bit more of an idea about defending, but I don't see any level of potential that matches Nani's. He's a good year and a half older too.
Joga_Bonito
Full Member
As I've argued before, a player obviously has to be in the team for their specific qualities to make a difference. Young is undoubtedly a very good player who would contribute important qualities to our squad that are currently lacking, but he can't do that, particuarly in the games where those qualities are most influential -- the biggest games where set pieces can make such a huge difference -- unless he is chosen ahead of Nani, Valencia, or Park.
That's the essential dilemma in buying a player who is not significantly better than what you already have. If other players are performing better at the moment when the biggest games arrive, Young's admittedly distinct qualities are unlikely to persuade the manager to select him ahead of a better performing or better suited player. In other words, it is open to question whether Young's quality from set pieces is quite so extraordinary that he would merit a place based on those qualities alone.
That's true of all players, of course, including the very best players in any team. But it is much easier to convince yourself (the manager) that the very best players deserve their place, even if they aren't performing as well as others at that particular time, than it is for a player whose major advantage over all others may only be relevant four or five times at most in each game (i.e. set pieces).
No doubt some will (once again) suggest that I am underrating Ashley Young's ability and potential contribution, but that would be to miss the point. He obviously contributes much more than just set piece delivery. But that is, in my opinion, the one attribute that elevates him above every other player of that type in the current squad.
It's entirely possible that if Nani and Valencia (or Park) are on fire at a certain point next season, Ashley Young would need to have become an essential part of the team to persuade the manager to include him ahead of one of those two, for example. Otherwise, it won't matter how good Young's set piece delivery is, because the team won't benefit from it if he is on the bench.
Personally, I'm unconvinced of the need to buy players who are neither currently essential or obviously better (or potentially better) than what we already have. And I'm also unconvinced of the wisdom of buying a player for a very important position at Manchester United -- wide player -- whose major advantage over what we already have is that they are outstanding at set piece delivery.
That's a quality that can come from any position in the team -- although, admittedly, it doesn't come from anywhere currently -- which means that it is non-essential to a particular position. If we were to buy a central midfielder with excellent set piece delivery, for example, would that not then negate a substantial element of the argument in favor of signing Ashley Young?
That's why I wouldn't personally buy any player on the basis of a quality that is non-essential to a particular position. But that appears to be a substantial part of the basis on which many people are arguing that we should buy Ashley Young.
That's the essential dilemma in buying a player who is not significantly better than what you already have. If other players are performing better at the moment when the biggest games arrive, Young's admittedly distinct qualities are unlikely to persuade the manager to select him ahead of a better performing or better suited player. In other words, it is open to question whether Young's quality from set pieces is quite so extraordinary that he would merit a place based on those qualities alone.
That's true of all players, of course, including the very best players in any team. But it is much easier to convince yourself (the manager) that the very best players deserve their place, even if they aren't performing as well as others at that particular time, than it is for a player whose major advantage over all others may only be relevant four or five times at most in each game (i.e. set pieces).
No doubt some will (once again) suggest that I am underrating Ashley Young's ability and potential contribution, but that would be to miss the point. He obviously contributes much more than just set piece delivery. But that is, in my opinion, the one attribute that elevates him above every other player of that type in the current squad.
It's entirely possible that if Nani and Valencia (or Park) are on fire at a certain point next season, Ashley Young would need to have become an essential part of the team to persuade the manager to include him ahead of one of those two, for example. Otherwise, it won't matter how good Young's set piece delivery is, because the team won't benefit from it if he is on the bench.
Personally, I'm unconvinced of the need to buy players who are neither currently essential or obviously better (or potentially better) than what we already have. And I'm also unconvinced of the wisdom of buying a player for a very important position at Manchester United -- wide player -- whose major advantage over what we already have is that they are outstanding at set piece delivery.
That's a quality that can come from any position in the team -- although, admittedly, it doesn't come from anywhere currently -- which means that it is non-essential to a particular position. If we were to buy a central midfielder with excellent set piece delivery, for example, would that not then negate a substantial element of the argument in favor of signing Ashley Young?
That's why I wouldn't personally buy any player on the basis of a quality that is non-essential to a particular position. But that appears to be a substantial part of the basis on which many people are arguing that we should buy Ashley Young.
Raees
Pythagoras in Boots
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 29,539
Versatility is the key with Young i feel, he not only can cover both wings, i believe he is a viable alternative to play in the hole behind Berbatov, giving us a serious back up strikeforce to Roo/Hernandez.
Young on one side, Nani on the other and centrally one from Berba, Roo or Hernandez would also give us a pretty good 4-3-3 option, that i personally do not believe we have at the moment. Variety and adaptability of formations, as well as cover for Rooney and both wingers, available at an affordable price and great set piece delivery make Young an interesting proposition, and in my view we would be getting quite a bit of 'bang for our buck' so to speak.
Strange thing is i cannot see how Young would be any better in the hole than Nani would be. Nani offers everything Young would in that position and more imo, he is a better dribbler and being two footed would have the ability to go either side and still shoot competently from range.
Tbf, as much as I don't really fancy Young as a top talent worthy of United, he is a pretty decent player in the hole. He has that nice instinct of moving into space and keeping it simple, but also taking the game by the scruff of the neck when he needs to.
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,914
I don't think that the main reason we're buying Young is because he takes a good set piece. I'd say the primary reason is because when one of our first choice wingers is injured we can lack a bit of pace and multi-dimensionality(?) out wide and because playing through the wings is so central to our play that can be a real problem. He offers options and I think this season is the first season he's shown any signs of progression (which I think has been recognised by the national team with him now getting a run of games).
I think what is key to you (Joga) not being entirely happy with the move and many others being so is that you aren't convinced that Nani's going to develop into a top class wide player, and if he doesn't then we'll have three players in one of our most important attacking positions who are very good but a cut below the best(which presents a problem), while many feel that Nani will do so with some even thinking he's already close to there.
That said I still think Liverpool's the more likely move for him.
I think what is key to you (Joga) not being entirely happy with the move and many others being so is that you aren't convinced that Nani's going to develop into a top class wide player, and if he doesn't then we'll have three players in one of our most important attacking positions who are very good but a cut below the best(which presents a problem), while many feel that Nani will do so with some even thinking he's already close to there.
That said I still think Liverpool's the more likely move for him.
devilish
Juventus fan who used to support United
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2002
- Messages
- 62,749
If we're aiming for wingers who are significantly better then our first teamers then we shouldn't invest on wingers at all. I can only think of just two wingers who can automatically put Valencia/Nani on the bench and they cost around 150m each. On the other hand if we're aiming for a winger whose versatile, who is fast, who has some decent talent and whose capable of giving us adequate backup/competition for Nani/Valencia (ie he is able to dribble past Crawley's defense) then Young will be fantastic for us.
I still have doubts on this deal, since I have full faith in Cleverley. On the other hand if SAF wants him then I would be more then happy of seeing him wear the United shirt.
I still have doubts on this deal, since I have full faith in Cleverley. On the other hand if SAF wants him then I would be more then happy of seeing him wear the United shirt.
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,914
That's why I wouldn't personally buy any player on the basis of a quality that is non-essential to a particular position. But that appears to be a substantial part of the basis on which many people are arguing that we should buy Ashley Young.
I don't think that the main reason we're buying Young is because he takes a good set piece. I'd say the primary reason is because when one of our first choice wingers is injured we can lack a bit of pace and multi-dimensionality(?) out wide and because playing through the wings is so central to our play that can be a real problem, as we've seen at various points over the last three years. He offers options and I think this season is the first season he's shown any signs of progression (which I think has been recognised by the national team with him now getting a run of games).
I think what is key to you not being entirely happy with the move and many others being so is that you aren't convinced that Nani's going to develop into a top class wide player, and if he doesn't then we'll have three players in one of our most important attacking positions who are very good but a cut below the best(which presents a problem), while many feel that Nani will do so with some even thinking he's already close to there.
That said I still think Liverpool's the more likely move for him.
Hectic
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 75,649
- Supports
- 30fps
I don't get why Young is supposed to be a squad player when he can develop into a better player than Valencia and Nani, it's entirely possible because potential is there. And he isn't really a couple of tiers lower than Sanchez and Hazard, that's just ridiculous. He's so underrated here for some reason.
What?
I'm sorry but Young is nowhere near the quality of either Valencia or Nani, let alone surpass them.
Carl
has permanently erect nipples
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 45,698
I really don't understand posts like "please no" and "god no".
He's English, a good age, can play a variety of positions, obviously talented and would be quite cheap possibly giving more cash to spend on say, the World Class goalkeeper we need?
Young would be a good signing. There's no doubt about that.
He's English, a good age, can play a variety of positions, obviously talented and would be quite cheap possibly giving more cash to spend on say, the World Class goalkeeper we need?
Young would be a good signing. There's no doubt about that.
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,914
What?
I'm sorry but Young is nowhere near the quality of either Valencia or Nani, let alone surpass them.
Have you not noticed any difference in his game this season Hectic? Don't think he's developed at all? I'd have agreed with you a year ago because I do think his development stunted for a couple of years, but I think he's shown more to his game than many (including me) realised. It's hard to shine and show attacking variety playing in a team that's all about counter-attacking and getting it forward to the target man, as it was under O'Neill.
Hectic
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 75,649
- Supports
- 30fps
I rate Young, I've always liked him and yes I've seen developments in him, however, I'd be lying if I said he was anywhere near the level Nani and Valencia operate. I would take him if he was completely satisfied with playing a predominantly squad role, but I doubt he would be, given he does have the talent to be a starter at a good club.
But that's not the point. No matter how I judge his development or ability at the club he's at, I still don't think he's a patch on Valencia or Nani.
But that's not the point. No matter how I judge his development or ability at the club he's at, I still don't think he's a patch on Valencia or Nani.
Transfer United Till I Die
I am totally in the know, honest
Rewind twelve years and replace every "young" in this thread with "yorke".
What?
I'm sorry but Young is nowhere near the quality of either Valencia or Nani, let alone surpass them.
He's at a similar level Valencia was at when we bought him.
GledTheRed
Full Member
FFS Cleverly is not a winger.
- Joined
- May 13, 2008
- Messages
- 16,820
I think Young would improve quite a bit playing for United. He was always a very promising youngster and he has plenty of raw skill. The quality of the players around him and Uniteds rotation system would benefit him a lot IMO.
Hectic
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 75,649
- Supports
- 30fps
He's at a similar level Valencia was at when we bought him.
I don't see them as overly similar, but I can nearly agree to that. Valencia came on leaps and bounds with us, and the player we have now is a monster, compared to the fellow we brought from Wigan.
Don't get me wrong, I think Young is a great player, and I have no doubt he would be even greater beside us, but I don't class him near the quality of either our wingers as of now, they are a class ahead.
Plechazunga
Grammar partisan who sleeps with a real life Ryan
FFS Cleverly is not a winger.
His first season back he will likely play as a winger though.
Transfer United Till I Die
I am totally in the know, honest
£12.6m for yorke? He's half the player kluivert is ffs.
Amir
Full Member
£12.6m for yorke? He's half the player kluivert is ffs.
Thank god we don't have a thread about people's reaction in August 98...
I have a feeling that we get Young, this thread will be coming back up in a years time.
I don't see them as overly similar, but I can nearly agree to that. Valencia came on leaps and bounds with us, and the player we have now is a monster, compared to the fellow we brought from Wigan.
Don't get me wrong, I think Young is a great player, and I have no doubt he would be even greater beside us, but I don't class him near the quality of either our wingers as of now, they are a class ahead.
Even if he is going to be slightly worse than both of them, he will be a useful addition. We don't really need a top class winger, nor we can afford one with the prices being touted in Sanchez thread, and we could use a young versatile winger who can also play in the middle in 4231 formation. I will welcome him here because he is exactly the sort of player we could do with at the minute, i.e. not expensive, pacey, talented and effective.
Rewind twelve years and replace every "young" in this thread with "yorke".
Or two years and replace it with Valencia.
I love it when we sign a proven PL player that no one seems to rate.
davisjw
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 5,289
What?
I'm sorry but Young is nowhere near the quality of either Valencia or Nani, let alone surpass them.
Utterly disagree. Valencia only showed promise at Wigan, he never lit the world up. And do you think Nani would shine on Villa's team? Absolutely not.
Perspective here. Young has at times carried Villa along. He's tracking back more, better with his set pieces and still has a wicked cross on him that's up there with Valencia.
Nani has never really shown on the left where Young loves to play.
Just playing alongside players of his own caliber is sure to make Young a better player. Then there's the training. He'd make an excellent addition.
Eugenius
Full Member
For £15m I'd expect him to be a regular starter but I don't see what he offers us that Nani doesn't bar set pieces. I'd rather have a left foot option there.
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,914
And do you think Nani would shine on Villa's team? Absolutely not.
Surely a joke.
KM
I’m afraid I just blue myself
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 49,893
Utterly disagree. Valencia only showed promise at Wigan, he never lit the world up. And do you think Nani would shine on Villa's team? Absolutely not.
Perspective here. Young has at times carried Villa along. He's tracking back more, better with his set pieces and still has a wicked cross on him that's up there with Valencia.
Nani has never really shown on the left where Young loves to play.
Just playing alongside players of his own caliber is sure to make Young a better player. Then there's the training. He'd make an excellent addition.
Rubbish Tony was brilliant for Wigan, easily their best player. He was one of the best young players at the WC Too.
Btw I would love to have young here but that Nani comment is utterly clueless. If you want a better description of Young's performance go to villa talk forums, the consensus there is that Young hasn't played that well, his performance has been boosted by setplays. Downing has been easily their best player.
MPTutd
Full Member
Don't see why people don't want him.
We only have 3 wingers - Valencia, Nani and Park. Giggs now seems to be a midfielder and is only a year or two from retirement. We need another winger, so why not Young.
I like him a lot. Two footed, scores goals, good crosser and has pace. I don't see what is not to like.
We only have 3 wingers - Valencia, Nani and Park. Giggs now seems to be a midfielder and is only a year or two from retirement. We need another winger, so why not Young.
I like him a lot. Two footed, scores goals, good crosser and has pace. I don't see what is not to like.
Donkey's Ears
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,682
Don't people learn? We had this about Valencia and Carrick too. Young is not a world beater but he would add useful value to an already strong squad. He could cover a range of positions very well, has a good fitness record, is proven in the Premiership and would significantly improve our set piece ability.
He won't improve our 1st XI that much necessarily but he will strengthen the squad and offer a different element.
He won't improve our 1st XI that much necessarily but he will strengthen the squad and offer a different element.
Hectic
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 75,649
- Supports
- 30fps
Even if he is going to be slightly worse than both of them, he will be a useful addition. We don't really need a top class winger, nor we can afford one with the prices being touted in Sanchez thread, and we could use a young versatile winger who can also play in the middle in 4231 formation. I will welcome him here because he is exactly the sort of player we could do with at the minute, i.e. not expensive, pacey, talented and effective.
As I said, the transfer wasn't the point of my post, I only disagreed with the idea that he has the potential to be better then either of them.
Hectic
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 75,649
- Supports
- 30fps
Utterly disagree. Valencia only showed promise at Wigan, he never lit the world up. And do you think Nani would shine on Villa's team? Absolutely not.
Perspective here. Young has at times carried Villa along. He's tracking back more, better with his set pieces and still has a wicked cross on him that's up there with Valencia.
Nani has never really shown on the left where Young loves to play.
Just playing alongside players of his own caliber is sure to make Young a better player. Then there's the training. He'd make an excellent addition.
I think Nani would have done a better job at Villa, given I think he is a much better player. And Nani has had plenty of performances out on the left.
alastair
ignorant
I'm not looking to be controversial here, but I'd like to know whether anyone's opinion of Nani has gone down since SAF started dropping him? For someone with the best stats of anyone in the league, it's strange.
apotheosis
O'Fortuna
Discipline
Fair point, but to be fair playing in the hole is the position that actually requires the least amount of discipline, as it is in effect as free a role as you are going to get at OT.
So to buy Young simply for additional discipline in essentially a free role, would appear a little contradictory imo.
johnmufc
New Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2009
- Messages
- 4,521
Young is too old. He will be 26 in July, and he is not a special player.
He would be a useful addition to the squad, but certainly not an improvement on Valencia or Nani. Park is also a very intelligent and reliable player, though obviously Young would offer something different. We also have Cleverley and Welbeck returning. Cleverley is like Park. He is a versatile midfield player who will play the majority of his football out wide. Welbeck is a fantastic young player with so much potential. He is an option out wide as well.
We do not need Young. If we were to invest in a winger, I would like to see a young player like Hoilett of Blackburn. He is only 20, a perfect age to be moulded into a special player.
He would be a useful addition to the squad, but certainly not an improvement on Valencia or Nani. Park is also a very intelligent and reliable player, though obviously Young would offer something different. We also have Cleverley and Welbeck returning. Cleverley is like Park. He is a versatile midfield player who will play the majority of his football out wide. Welbeck is a fantastic young player with so much potential. He is an option out wide as well.
We do not need Young. If we were to invest in a winger, I would like to see a young player like Hoilett of Blackburn. He is only 20, a perfect age to be moulded into a special player.
londonredmaniac
I suffer delusions of grandeur
Don't see why people don't want him.
We only have 3 wingers - Valencia, Nani and Park. Giggs now seems to be a midfielder and is only a year or two from retirement. We need another winger, so why not Young.
I like him a lot. Two footed, scores goals, good crosser and has pace. I don't see what is not to like.
Yup.
alastair
ignorant
Young would be a great signing for United. I'm personally predicting he'll end up at Liverpool though, because they need him most.
Hectic
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2006
- Messages
- 75,649
- Supports
- 30fps
I'm not looking to be controversial here, but I'd like to know whether anyone's opinion of Nani has gone down since SAF started dropping him? For someone with the best stats of anyone in the league, it's strange.
No, it's temporary drop of form, brought on by an injury and made bigger through being rested.
Amir
Full Member
I'm not looking to be controversial here, but I'd like to know whether anyone's opinion of Nani has gone down since SAF started dropping him? For someone with the best stats of anyone in the league, it's strange.
His team mates's opinion of his hasn't gone down - They've selected him their player of the season.
Since that Liverpool game he hasn't been the same. Maybe lack of confidence, maybe burn out. I don't think he's played differently, but his end product kind of disappeared, bar his two assists in the Fulham game. Valencia came back strongly, Giggs played well, Park played well, and Nani - who helped carry us for a long time - hasn't. It's simple.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Share: