This is pretty much my take on Bruno, word for word. I’ve had a good look now, it’s been two years, and I have the same conclusion as you. And for the same reasons you cited. Obviously, he’s a United player ya-di-ya, I support them all etc - but as a 10, not for me, ‘not having him’, in the words of Gary Neville. I accept that he scores a lot of goals, but he isn’t my type of midfield player personally, and I also think that the team will not be quite good enough to win anything without a proper ‘midfielding’ 10. In fact, I think we could be a better side if we could get VDB up to speed and he played instead.
I see Bruno as a match winner. VDB is the type of player who improves a team’s play. I don’t think Bruno makes us ‘play better’, which I personally don’t think is an acceptable statement to apply to a #10 because to me, that has always been their job, but he does make us win games. There is no 10 who will come in and replicate his numbers, but the role isn’t as simple as that. There are other things on a football pitch that a player can give besides that. With a goalscoring front 3, if I were given the choice, I’d swap Bruno for a different player.
This may all be down to player preference or whatever, but it is what it is, nobody and no amount of numbers or heatmaps or whatever will change my mind on this. People have a problem with a goalscoring centre forward in Lukaku because, ‘despite scoring lots of goals’ (and he’s an actual fecking striker) they don’t approve of the way he plays the game, so nobody should tell me anything about my view on this matter. I know the great 10s I grew up appreciating, Bruno isn’t near them for me, he’s closer to Wayne Rooney than a classic 10, and out of sheer preference, and frankly what I think can benefit the team, I’d take Bernardo Silva even if we are just talking #10s from Portugal.
There is no ‘dislike’ or anything of that sort, aside from the natural irritation I feel at times when I feel he is rated higher than I personally rate him, but I’m unable to really argue because he scores goals. He’s a goal threat, but I’ve never been enchanted by him as a player and likely never will. I struggle to see him as one of the world’s best players just because I don’t think he has rare talent level. He avoids congested areas on the pitch for me, because I don’t think he has the skill-set to operate in them, and for me, that is where he should be spending most of his time.
As for the Grealish debate that has gone on over a couple pages, I again cannot feel that the argument is being dismissed simply by a quick glance at Opta. Whoever you think is better overall - anyone who watches them play can certainly see that there are obviously a lot of things that Grealish can do better than Bruno Fernandes can, and a couple of obvious things that he cannot. It is then a case of which qualities you find most important for them. For me, Grealish links better with his teammates. Not just his centre forward, but all of them. He can also take the ball under pressure and keep it. He can open up space in an instant by going past one or two players too. Bruno Fernandes scores more goals, andI don’t know what the numbers say, but I think statistically creates more chances, although I don’t think there’s much in that.
I’ve concluded that my views are more than anything, a matter of stylistic preference, and respect the opposing opinion, which in this case is an extremely popular one. A 10 is like halfway between a CM and a CF by definition. In our historic 442 sides, he could replace Rooney but could never replace Scholes. He doesn’t have enough midfield grace to his game for me, but his forward instincts are actually as good as many strikers of the 442 era like Rooney or Cantona, and better than some others even like Bergkamp I’d say. But Bergkamp could probably be Scholes or Modric in another life. Bruno is different. Which is fine. But I can’t see that I’d ever see him in the same light as the consensus.
8
