Yorkeontop
meonbottom
I was amending my post as you replied.Sure, but your post made it sound like he's not quite at the top standard, I disagree, he absolutely is top draw. Hes just surrounded by dross.
I was amending my post as you replied.Sure, but your post made it sound like he's not quite at the top standard, I disagree, he absolutely is top draw. Hes just surrounded by dross.
I see now, yeh to be honest I agree with you here. He should be an influential player in a functioning system, nothing more.I was amending my post as you replied.
Or maybe Rashford is the one leaving!Laugh all you want but as far as I am aware of, it was this position that DVB played in the Ajax side that probably earned ETH the United job. Granted, he might have had a purple patch and it doesn't mean anything, but it is at least a little odd that he hasn't been given a shot at all.
I completely agree with you. If people wanted to replace Fred with Mount then my best guess is that those people didn't have any idea of what the positive thing was that Fred added to the team. It certainly wasn't on the ball stuff - it was is mobility, energy, workrate and willingness to get stuck in. No question that Mount is way better on the ball but apart from that... It has to be said, that it fits the picture of our team composition, not just decision makers, also a part of the fanbase. They are ready for the glass cannon approach - adding as many people to the team for their ability in attack or ability on the ball but failing to get the balance right for the moments where we have to actually win the ball or defend as a whole. McTominay as DM, McTominay as CM, Bruno as CM, Eriksen as CM... Doesn't make no sense. Now you see Mainoo and Amrabat who are at least average in those off the ball aspects and it is obvious how benefitial it is to the team overall. You can have prime Casemiro in there, it still wouldn't be enough to carry all the defensive load to have Mount and Bruno free to attack. Maybe if you have Kante in his prime, maybe. But probably not even that.
I think this Rashford comment was in the context of Bruno celebrating a certain number of appearances or something. So the notion of him leaving doesn't really hold up.
What kind of stupid comment is that?Let me guess you're one of people who think the likes of Hojlund are good enough for the club.
Wierd post.Let me guess you're one of people who think the likes of Hojlund are good enough for the club.
Let me guess you're one of people who think the likes of Hojlund are good enough for the club.
Cue the caf rage over 'Statman Dave cherry picking stats' and 'chances created isn't a proper stat'.
Why is our Xg so crap if this master chance creator has been serving it up for two seasons now?
Why is our Xg so crap if this master chance creator has been serving it up for two seasons now?
Why is our Xg so crap if this master chance creator has been serving it up for two seasons now?
How can you watch the likes of Antony and Garnacho match after match and still ask that question?
He's got 8 assists this season and 8 assists last season .
When we see that Bruno created 114 chances , yet the team he created 114 chances in had an xg of 55 and has scored 55 . It begs the question that you asked , what are we missing in translation ? .
It's not really poor finishing because we'd be underscoring xg .
What is the xg of those 114 chances? I suspect the chances may be heavily swayed by his individual corner and free kick taking?
My eyes tell me that we don't create good chances . For a time it seemed we mastered 1 type of consistently creating , put the fast guy through from deep . It's not enough though .
Garnacho has probably had a better season than Bruno.
Good post and I agree with both of your conclusions.
Why is our Xg so crap if this master chance creator has been serving it up for two seasons now?
It might be. It also might be around the same with Bruno having slightly lesser numbers. Difficult to establish which scenario has what likelyhood I guess. Fact of the matter is that the chance creation ability of our team is something that actually prevents us from being higher up the table. xG wise we ended the season as the 12th best team, goals wise as the 9th best team. Maybe it isn't as important to have one player with such freak numbers to be productive. Maybe, those numbers lead to drawing wrong conclusions about what is needed for this team to be functional.You actually have to ask that question?! Have you watched Manchester United these last two seasons? Did it occur to you that our xG might be a bit better if a couple of other players shared the whole chance creation thing? Because it’s been painfully obvious to me that the other attacking players have been absolutely shite at this important part of their job.
Because how they calculate chances/assists is inaccurate as feck. Plus we have a very young inconsistent forward line and Rashford out of form.Why is our Xg so crap if this master chance creator has been serving it up for two seasons now?
Last part would explain the number of goals. Not necessarily xG. There is nothing around our productivity in the final third being not good. This year it might be really really bad but even in the years before, isn't great either. That isn't a stick to beat Bruno with though, but it helps to draw a complete picture - listing all his individual numbers isn't really providing the full picture. Which is mostly the point of criticism towards him.Because how they calculate chances/assists is inaccurate as feck. Plus we have a very young inconsistent forward line and Rashford out of form.
Was thinking more if he passes to Garnacho, for example, who then should shoot but cuts back, that wouldn't register for xG but is a good chance. A lot of the time it's not our finishing but decision making up top that hurts us. Since we tweaked things and around when Hojlund came back goals haven't been as big an issue as people make out but they were early on, first half of the season we were dreadful.Last part would explain the number of goals. Not necessarily xG. There is nothing around our productivity in the final third being not good. This year it might be really really bad but even in the years before, isn't great either. That isn't a stick to beat Bruno with though, but it helps to draw a complete picture - listing all his individual numbers isn't really providing the full picture. Which is mostly the point of criticism towards him.
What is the xg of those 114 chances? I suspect the chances may be heavily swayed by his individual corner and free kick taking?
Not greatHow would you rate Garnacho's chance creation though?
You actually have to ask that question?! Have you watched Manchester United these last two seasons? Did it occur to you that our xG might be a bit better if a couple of other players shared the whole chance creation thing? Because it’s been painfully obvious to me that the other attacking players have been absolutely shite at this important part of their job.
The whole point is about sharing the chance creation thing. The way Bruno plays and the way managers have set him up and how his teammates play with him have contributed to inflated Bruno stats at the detriment of our overall attacking play.
I will probably get slated here but Bruno kind of reminds me of Stevie G at Liverpool.
Now no one can say SG was a bad player. He was Mr Liverpool. Similarly you can't say Bruno is a bad player, albeit he isn't at the status level SG held at Liverpool.
Where I think they were the same/similar was in game play.
What I mean was that they had good numbers. Could change the game. Yet it was often in my opinion to the detriment of the team. As in they didn't really keep structure and discipline. The team had to compensate for them doing what they wanted.
This can give you magical moments but likes of SAF and Pep would have reigned this in.
You are not wrong. And yes, there is every chance you may get hounded for this.
The only thing I'd differ with, Gerrard was a better player.
I will probably get slated here but Bruno kind of reminds me of Stevie G at Liverpool.
Now no one can say SG was a bad player. He was Mr Liverpool. Similarly you can't say Bruno is a bad player, albeit he isn't at the status level SG held at Liverpool.
Where I think they were the same/similar was in game play.
What I mean was that they had good numbers. Could change the game. Yet it was often in my opinion to the detriment of the team. As in they didn't really keep structure and discipline. The team had to compensate for them doing what they wanted.
This can give you magical moments but likes of SAF and Pep would have reigned this in.
think the perfect comparison from us over here in america would be that hes like russell westbrook of the nba. Dude would put up absolutely insane numbers. Averaged a triple double for the year, which was just absolutely insane at the time. One of the only people to do that for several seasons as well. But he is just a chaotic force out there and never really helped his team with overall success. Im just not sure you can have success anymore with someone like bruno, even if his stats can be looked on favorably.I will probably get slated here but Bruno kind of reminds me of Stevie G at Liverpool.
Now no one can say SG was a bad player. He was Mr Liverpool. Similarly you can't say Bruno is a bad player, albeit he isn't at the status level SG held at Liverpool.
Where I think they were the same/similar was in game play.
What I mean was that they had good numbers. Could change the game. Yet it was often in my opinion to the detriment of the team. As in they didn't really keep structure and discipline. The team had to compensate for them doing what they wanted.
This can give you magical moments but likes of SAF and Pep would have reigned this in.
Dalot been robbed
Dalot been robbed