There actually were "two ways about it". Onana is better with his feet, but De Gea is indisputably a better shot-stopper. The one and only argument for getting rid of De Gea for Onana is a once-in-a-generation keeper who was available last summer but would never be available again if we missed out on him, akin to what the situation we found ourselves in with Ronaldo 20 years ago. But the truth is that Onana is not a once-in-a-generation keeper. We actually had an outstanding defensive record last season and the last thing we needed to worry about was the keeper. We had a massive hole at CB (Varane being a permacrock), CM (Casemiro can't do it all on his own), CF (Martial is a clown) and arguably second CB (Maguire was a problem) and a second CM (Eriksen is collapsing). But instead we fukked around with a vanity keeper we didn't need and who is arguably a downgrade from De Gea.
Onana holding ball waiting around for players to get into position negates the whole idea of a brilliant ballplaying keeper. Defenders read exactly what Onana is going to do and lick their chops while holds the ball. I'm the first to admit that Onana has solid ballplaying skills but by holding the ball as long as he does -- with his foot on the top of the ball while we waits -- he nullifies his very strength. When you have a keeper with that kind of ability you want that keeper to hit his passes quickly. If this is not self-evident to you there's not much more than can be stated.
OMG reams of posts were posted here and elsewhere about the supposed "transformation", which I documented here months ago. Hilarious how so many people picked up on the cliche.
YouTubers:
Other media:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/man...kZkFCEztQfmHAiBZqFQp-jKOugi_Mg-LRZ0zUwRNIzom9
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/so...would-transform-manchester-united/vi-AA1fCLRK
https://strettynews.com/2023/07/05/...s-andre-onana-to-transform-manchester-united/
https://en.hocmarketing.org/revolutionizing-man-utd-how-andre-onana-transformed-the-clubs-g-58785
https://www.magzter.com/stories/newspaper/Irish-Daily-Mirror/ONANA-TURNS-UP-THE-HEATON-UNITED
https://www.theinfostride.com/onana-will-transform-how-mufc-plays-erik-ten-hag/
https://loveworlduk.org/andre-onana-could-transform-man-united/
https://www.downthewings.com/scout-report-how-can-andre-onana-transform-manchester-united/
I could go on.
This is a typical "analysis" of how Onana would "transform" United's attack:
Onana would be a transformative signing. It’s been clear how big of an impact Ederson and Allison have had at Manchester City and Liverpool respectively. Onana would likely have a very similar impact at United.
Which is to say, not very astute. Although there can be no denying that Ederson was a huge upgrade over Hart and Alisson a huge upgrade over whoever preceded him, in no universe can it be argued that either keeper had a more transformative impact on their squad than Aguero and DeBryune for City and Salah and Virgil for Liverpool. Matches can be lost with a poor keeper, but great keepers have never and will never make a mediocre attack a powerful attack. Aguero and now Haaland are the difference between chances missed and chances converted. And beyond those two, their outfield players are outstanding. As many of us discussed yesterday, not a single United player would make the combined XI between the two squads. As for the ferocity of City's attack yesterday (which by their standards wasn't even that great of a performance), could it in any way be argued that the Ederson had a meaningful impact on the game? Of course not. But what was argued in June, when the mantra to "get rid" of De Gea became a fatwah -- "
Look, DDG just had to go, there's no two ways about it."
-- we fukked ourselves with ridiculously poor squad rebuilding decisions, starting with getting rid of De Gea for a keeper who didn't suit the players we already have and who cost the club 40m that could have been spent on vastly higher priorities, such as a CB and a CDM. We haven't learned our lessons from previous mistakes and appear hellbent on making the same mistakes again and again and again.