If we were a well-run club making title challenges year after year, then we wouldn't hesitate for a second to sell Garnacho for 40-50 mill. But we have to live in the real world. And the reality is that we are mid table. And despite all the valid criticisms of Garnacho he's still better than Rashford, Antony, Højlund and Zirkzee (although he's in a good period). And he's only 20 years old so he has lots of time to grow as a player.
Alejandro Garnacho (out) | Chelsea make enquiries
- Thread starter Luca[4]
- Start date
- Status
Again you're looking at a handful of signings that most people would include in the top 10 worst Premier League signings of all time and using those as a barometer of what to expect.
I agree he's one of our most valuable players financially. He's worth about 60m and not many of our players if any are.
But it doesn't matter. Transfer fees are stupid by default without comparing to other transfers if it's between Premier League clubs. So we should fleece them or they can feck off. Garnacho still has a future here because it's not like he has done a Rashford. Everton was asking similar price for Branthwaite and Garnacho is a bigger talent, younger, and is an attacker.
It all depends on our estimation of Garnacho’s potential. If there’s a chance that he gets stuck at his current level, we should take the money (not 40-50 million though). But many fans believe that he has the potential to be 20+ goal a season forward who is currently in the frustrating, temperamental youngster phase. I think this is a topic which rightly divides the fans because the likelihood of both scenarios isn’t too dissimilar.
My gut says to stick with him. He doesn’t seem like the Rashford mould where he will stop putting in the work. And the club is probably wiser too and wouldn’t be handing out mega contracts any longer. But I would understand why we would sell for 60 million+
It does matter in the context of the post I responded to initially. Cheers
That's a reach from what I said.
He doesn't though.
Not sure on the technicals but it clearly would mean we have a lot more room to maneuver in the market which we need.
This is exactly what I’ve been saying.
We’re using our own stupidity as a standard for other teams to meet, it makes no sense
Romeo Lavia cost 50m last time they were relegated. Why would the English Dibling be any cheaper, Meg?
He beats enough people either taking it past them or using his pace. If you don’t rate him that’s fair enough, but Nani was not a significantly better player.
Fair enough mate, I think for all of Nanis flaws he was a far better footballer. Agree to disagree though.
He was. I think our fanbase have forgotten the talent Nani had. Garnacho so far hasn't shown that level of talent.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2015
- Messages
- 19,566
- Supports
️
Southampton won’t have a bidding war on there hands for him.
Yes he was. Nani had a better assist per minutes ratio than Beckham, Cantona, Sheringham and Giggs. He could be frustrating at times, but he was still a much more productive and consistent player over a longer period of time than Garnacho is. Of course, Garnacho may reach those heights later in his career, but he may not.
Nani is the most underrated player on this forum, ever.
I feel like most threads in the ff descends into a Nani debate.
Nani was a good player as Garnacho is, both frustrating and both have produced great performances. Of course was more productive over his career than Garnacho has been.
Really want Amorim to try him at wing back, it's the only position where he would get space to run directly at defenders.
Would be silly to sell, unless someone offers 80m plus.
Would be silly to sell, unless someone offers 80m plus.
No. It’s objectively true that Nani was a more productive player with a more consistent end product per minutes played than Garnacho.
Garnacho may develop into a player as productive as Nani, but he may not.
This is fair, but it's also worth pointing out that Nani played in well functioning teams with a different calibre of teammates
Wasn't there a season where Nani got in Prem team of the year because he made an incredible record amount of insists that season?
Nani could regularly dribble and make a fool of players, they would foul him out of frustration due to the tricks he use to pull off against them, then he had his trademark rocket shots, it's nuts to think Garnacho has anywhere that kind of talent and ability. garnacho struggles if we are playing teams deep and doesn't have anywhere the flair finishing or dribbling ability of Nani.
Nani could regularly dribble and make a fool of players, they would foul him out of frustration due to the tricks he use to pull off against them, then he had his trademark rocket shots, it's nuts to think Garnacho has anywhere that kind of talent and ability. garnacho struggles if we are playing teams deep and doesn't have anywhere the flair finishing or dribbling ability of Nani.
Let’s compare again at the end of Garnacho’s careers cause your not comparing apples with apples.
I’m not the one claiming Garnacho is as good as Nani was - you were. Did you forget that?
Exactly. Garnacho is miles off achieving the level Nani was that season. He might get there if he improves a lot, but he might not.
At the same age, not comparing to him at the peak of his career. There is a major difference.
Nani was a significantly better dribbler, better ball control, better passer, better crosser, struck the ball far better, stronger.
Garnacho works harder on the pitch, has similar pace (not the sort that terrifies teams but enough to get away on the break), similar level of self belief.
Garnacho works harder on the pitch, has similar pace (not the sort that terrifies teams but enough to get away on the break), similar level of self belief.
You said “Nani was not a significantly better player”. He was though. When called out on that you’ve now changed the goal posts to “at the same age”.
So if you admit that Garnacho now is not as good as Nani was at his peak, then you’re implicitly accepting that we don’t know if Garnacho will ever reach that level, because we can’t predict the future.
Nani was good enough to play 41 times for the best team in the world at the same age. Garnacho doesn't even get into the squad of any of the best teams in the world and is not even a guaranteed starter for a failing United.
These comparisons are usually silly and don't help.
Of course you have to compare at the same age, it’s just stupid not too. Do you always compare entire careers against 2 season??
Of course no one knows if he will but I believe he will, it’s ok with me if you don’t, I really don’t care, but I’ll happily have this chat with you in 15yrs time.
Look at it in Thai baht and it’s even more alarming:
฿ 3,349,848,695.28.
If someone claims two players are around the same level, no, I’m not going to assume they actually mean one of them “might” reach the level of the other one in the future. Because that’s a pointless hypothetical.
Your initial claim is just objectively false - Garnacho has never produced at the level Nani has and we have no idea if he ever will, so what’s the point in trying to claim he’s just as good?
What has this thread descended into. Nani was older than Garnacho is now when he joined United. What is the point in comparing their stats at this point, it’s massively unfair.
60 and we may have a deal
Which is exactly why it’s pointless to try and claim that Garnacho is as good as Nani. He’s not, but one day he may reach that level.
Then you don’t sell him
No-one in their right mind would pay £100m for hi.
Ok so purely on goals and assists for us, Garnacho averages a goal and assist every 149.03 mins, Nani over his career with us averaged a goal and assist every 149.66 mins. So on what they have produced alone, I’d say that’s factually even. What would you say?
That’s taken from transfermarket, and no I don’t have time to check other sites.
It’s quite fair to claim Garnacho is better than Nani was at the same age. Garnacho was more productive last season in the Premier League, in a shit team, than Nani was in a far weaker league.
Which would be great if that’s what the other poster claimed. That’s not what he said though.
Nani was much faster though, more two-footed, a better dribbler and could vary his game more. He became even better when he adapted his game and became more direct - did that happen when he destroyed Clichy for pace? Before that he tried too many tricks which slowed down the game too much.
If Garnacho can reach prime Nani levels, then we have a great player!
See my post 2 above, your being very pedantic when I have explained what I was saying to you.
You are factually incorrect but ignore that if you want.
- Status