I don’t even think the Bruno thing is particularly complicated. People make comparisons with Coutinho, but it’s the detail in that deal that is most important. Liverpool didn’t just sell Coutinho because it is apparently good practice to sell your best player when trying to build a team. It obviously isn’t. But you would note that Coutinho wasn’t simply replaced with a younger/cheaper version of himself. Liverpool went to 3 proper midfielders.
I’m not saying a team MUST have 3 midfielders. But I am saying that a team’s structure should be the product of a plan/vision as opposed to ‘these are the strengths of the players we have’. The talk has been about the likes of Ashworth and Wilcox creating a clearly defined way they want United to play. The outcome of that exercise cannot be what works best for Bruno Fernandes. If by coincidence, the vision DOES incorporate Bruno’s profile, then the decision to keep makes itself. If we are going a different way, then it doesn’t matter if a player who doesn’t fit also happens to be our ‘best player’. The decision should be led by our vision, so it is not outrageous at all to me to sell Bruno for big money if we want to play with 3 CMs long term, and it’s more ridiculous to put that on hold until Bruno has nothing left in the tank, especially when we are not even winning anything with Bruno anyway.
People were happy for years to sacrifice a De Gea that made incredible saves for the sole reason that their overall vision for the team included a different profile of goalkeeper. Wan-Bissaka and Maguire have extreme qualities in certain areas, but many want them to be replaced for reasons of profile. ‘Can’t play a high line’. ‘Not good enough in possession’. People need to be less precious regarding Bruno, these things do not mean that he isn’t a good player. It’s a specific assessment of qualities in the context of a team vision. Let’s start with that. If our plan is to sit deep and counter attack with fast forwards, then of course, keep Bruno. He’s the best you can get for that.
