We might need to go and get Rice. West Ham are in a commanding position. He might actually be a bargain.
Aurelien Tchouameni / Signs for Madrid
- Thread starter Adam-Utd
- Start date
- Status
I’m not but that’s neither here nor there. If you think the best defensive midfielders impact games as much as the best attackers you’re wrong, it’s not authoritative to say so. You’re objectively wrong and it’s the reason why every poster on this forum, including yourself, would take Salah/KDB/Kane over Rodri/Fabinho.
They'll need to replace their legendary MF trio sooner than later so they've opted to go for the best young talent available at those positions sooner.
He isn't Pogba, so no I don't expect him to be anywhere Pogba. He is a box to box, I expect him to be a bit more adventurous than he was yesterday which is how he generally plays for Monaco but I don't expect him to turn into Pogba.
That's an enormous fee. Wow.
Pedri/Gavi vs Camavinga/Tchouameni in midfield during El Clasicos in the future will be fun
Whether I think that or not is irrelevant. I didn't say that, you made that up and then went with it and started telling me I was wrong about something I never said. Maybe before you so comprehensively tell people they are "wrong" you should actually read their posts, you won't look like as much of a <insert something here that would get me a warning> then.
A defensive midfielder is worth whatever the club is willing to pay for them depending on how important it is for them to get one in, or any midfielder, or player, in general. For us it's a glaring squad weakness right now so if we could get one good enough to fix such a glaring hole then the fee wouldn't bother me too much.
Also, he's not even a DM, right? He's more a box to box.
Even if you would have said that, you'd still not be wrong. The guy is talking bollocks.
Haaland and Mbappe also play in positions in which they have Benzema and Mbappe. For the long term they are going to play a 433 and Tchoumeni joins Camavinga and Valverde as the next stars of their midfield. Even if 2 of the 3 end up as top class they're pretty sorted. The fee is huge but I guess we bought Sancho for only a little less.
Well, yes, of course he is. Otherwise no team would ever buy anything other than forwards
Van Dijk, what a bloody waste of money he was!
Funny how you accused me of putting words in your mouth and now you’ve done the exact same thing. I didn’t say anywhere teams shouldn’t sign players that aren’t forwards.Well, yes, of course he is. Otherwise no team would ever buy anything other than forwards
Van Dijk, what a bloody waste of money he was!
Thinking attacking players impact the game more than defensive midfielders isn’t bollocks and if you think it is it’s you who doesn’t understand the sport, not me.
And beyond that. If you take City as an example, can prime De Bruyne be at his best without prime Fernandinho and does the opposite apply?
As much as it may sound counter intuitive, I think that the best DMs are more influential than the best attackers. Top DMs enable attackers.
But if forwards are the most important position on the pitch and you should always buy them over, say, a defensive midfielder, then why would teams ever bother buying a defensive midfielder? may as well just buy more forwards and throw them on to the pitch.
It was more to highlight how ridiculous your thought process is that one area of the pitch is simply more important than another when there are so many more factors at play such as the state of a team's current squad.
Because there’s no use stockpiling forwards if they can’t even get on the pitch. You’re only going to be playing 3, maybe 4 at the same time. You seem to think I want teams to play 0-0-4 or something. Obviously you sign players for the other positions but if you have weaknesses in midfield and up top, you buy better forwards first.
That's what in demand looks like. Guy got to pick the best of the best.
Really? You really believe that? We have Ronaldo and Sancho and Bruno and had Pogba as attacking players. Meanwhile our defensive players were.... mcTominay, Fred, Matic ... You're out of your mind if you truly believe that.
You say that like having Ronaldo, Sancho, Bruno and Pogba is an amazing attack. It’s absolutely pitiful compared to City, Liverpool, PSG, Bayern, Madrid, even Spurs.
Absolutely not! The 2 dream signings for United, over all others, would pretty much be De Jong and Tchouameni. Fullbacks next. The "smart" way to go about building is to address your weakest positions. Our weakest positions? Our midfielders and our fullbacks.
Your way of thinking is about 30 years outdated mate.
I think that's an incredibly subjective claim and open to criticism and you could easily argue that teams should build from the back too, and many have. The two most successful sides of the modern era (City and Liverpool under Pep and Klopp) prioritised their defense over their attack in order to become successful. Pool actually sold their best attacking player at the time, and used the money to buy a defender and GK and became far more successful as a result.
The point is that outright claiming someone is "wrong" and "doesn't understand the game" is a load of utter bollocks when making a claim like that. I think going by the fact that pretty much nobody agrees with you, it's probably you who is the clueless one, buddy.
It's pitiful because of pitiful coaching and a pitiful support system. We can't sustain attacks because everyone behind the attackers are shite. We can't build up play. We can't get the ball to attackers early enough or in good positions. We can't keep opposition from dominating us, so our attackers are never in good positions. Seriously - your logic here is like that of a 5 year old who only looks at the goalscorer and that's it
Ok Mr. Manager, please excuse us mortals trying to understand a simple sport.
I'd guess common sense says that all the players influence the game based on the type of opposition you play against. There's no point having Harry fecking Kane at top if he plays for Millwall against City.
But it's okay, I agree with you, no point discussing.
Liverpool did not prioritise their defence at all. Klopp’s first 10m+ signings were Mane, Salah, Wijnaldum, Salah and Ox. Upgrading the front 6 positions while spending little to nothing on the back 5, using free transfers or cheap punts. Only then did they start spending on defensive signings. And of course City didn’t build from the top because they already had Aguero, KDB and Sterling. Which is the hard bit.
Can someone explain the last bit?
It’s pitiful because they’re nowhere near as good as the forwards listed in those other teams.It's pitiful because of pitiful coaching and a pitiful support system. We can't sustain attacks because everyone behind the attackers are shite. We can't build up play. We can't get the ball to attackers early enough or in good positions. We can't keep opposition from dominating us, so our attackers are never in good positions. Seriously - your logic here is like that of a 5 year old who only looks at the goalscorer and that's it
But if both teams only became successful after signings those defensive players, then how the feck does that validate your silly point that attacking players are more important than all else?
oh and you conveniently left out Matip, Clyne, Robertson in your list there, just cause they weren't 10m+. So selective.
I still think the fee is steep, but Valverde, Camavinga and Tchouameni are certainly going to be a hell of a high pressure midfield
It's unequivocally steep but if these three play the way they have been, then good luck trying to keep the ball against Real Madrid. The defenders will be bored while the attackers will be exhausted.
Again, you are making it out like I’m saying defensive players are useless, which I haven’t said at any point. Obviously you need good players everywhere to be successful, but the attacking ones are more impactful.
I'm still waiting for you to provide conclusive proof, research, evidence whatever that proves this. Because if you're telling people they're wrong for not believing that or haven't a clue about football if they don't, then you should really be able to back it up with hard facts.
Okay. Liverpool with an amazing attack and an absolutely dogshit defence took City to the last day in a title race. Please could you find me a team with a great defence and a tumescent attack that came so close to winning the league?
I think the price is as a result of a combinstion of factors.
- Many clubs wanted him
- Madrid currently have a lot of cash
- No many holes in the team.
Are... you talking about this season?
Because both teams conceded the same amount of goals...
Also, wouldn't that validate my point anyway, like, City had the better defense and therefore won the league?
No, 13/14.
Funnily enough, he had his point, it was there staring at him. Liverpool and City conceded the same amount of goals but City scored more.
Ok, 13/14, they scored the same amount of goals but conceded a lot more.
So they lost the title because of their defense.
Um, again, what's your point?
Funnily enough, he had his point, it was there staring at him. Liverpool and City conceded the same amount of goals but City scored more.
that's true, still nonsense though, it's much easier to skew goals scored than goals against, because the big teams tend to give massive spankings to the shitter teams so regularly now.What? My point is that an absolutely shite defence can be taken to 2 points of a Premier League title. There’s no way any defence, no matter how good, is taking an absolutely shite attack to 2 points of a Premier League title.
So your conclusive, 100%, this is why me and everyone who isn't you is wrong, proof is.. that nearly a decade ago a team came 2nd despite not having a great defense.
Well then, you sure got us there!
- Status