Erik ten Hag | 2022/23 & 2023/24

[redcucumber]

Eriksen was the same age as Casemiro when we signed him. And he'll likely see out his 3-year contract here. If he can't be considered a signing that was done with a view to the future, by the same token neither can Casemiro. Which begs the question, why was ten Hag happy to sign off on bringing him in for £65m?

 

[Iowa Red]

You don't throw a player in to start games after they're making returns from chronic injuries. You start off by fielding them off the bench, you get this right?

Wise words. Are you sure ETH follow's your line of thinking? After all, he had no problem rushing Luke Shaw back for the Luton Town game which led to Shaw being lost for the season.

 

[stevoc]

My friend this makes no sense. Mount had a first injury bout a couple games in and needed to be bedded back into games. That's a big part of being benched, as is needing to get used to the system (again we've seen this with big players under Klopp and Pep but you keep burying your head in the sand).

I can imagine.

What is your argument exactly? That Ten hag was favouring McTominay because he gave up on Mount? If so that's stretching.


Every man and his dog knew Eriksen had 1 or 2 seasons left in him and was a fine stop gap on that regard for a free. Saying he hit 44 apps in season 1 is fine, we expected him to still give us some legs and quality. Then he got inured for ages, and got injured again for ages, and can't run anymore. And we aren't surprised because he's in the twilight of his career.

Did you think Ten hag saw Eriksen as a long term solution? What on earth led you to think this?

Also can you point to where we prioritised Amrabat as a permanent signing season? There's varying reports with Romano saying Amrabat is waiting for man utd and ten hag wants him, but not on what deal or what strategy. And there was Luckhurst saying the Amrabat links were exaggerated bollocks. The truth is evidently somewhere I between, but him being a loan with option tells you we aren't convinced by him.

You are doing that thing again where you make things up in your head that you think people have said.

They would have all been broadly squad players. Eriksen may have played more had he not been injured a fair bit and if we clicked system wise, but none of these players were actually seen to be in the first team for season 2 before a ball was kicked.

Ten Hag had big plans for Mainoo since last April (you can see the quotes yourself for that and refer to pre season). Casemiro, Mainoo, Bruno, Mount would have been our primary first choice midfielders with an overlay of Amrabat, McT, Eriksen beyond that. Of course Mainoo being injured for half the season and Mount virtually all season changes it and leads to dependency on squad players.

So McTominay got it.

And again I never said I thought Eriksen or Amrabat were seen as first choice.

But clearly they were integral to Ten Hags midfield plans unlike McTominay. Because as you emphatically pointed out over the last 3 pages, Ten Hag wanted to sell him.

 

[stevoc]

Eriksen was the same age as Casemiro when we signed him. And he'll likely see out his 3-year contract here. If he can't be considered a signing that was done with a view to the future, by the same token neither can Casemiro. Which begs the question, why was ten Hag happy to sign off on bringing him in for £65m?

It's best not to try to make any sense out of any of it mate.

 

[TheGhostOfJamesJoyce]

I check back in after a few days and the same posters still have the will to defend absolutely every last detail/criticism aimed at our manager At this point I'm convinced ETH's agency have people on this forum.

It's honestly bat-shit crazy. When he's sacked and a distant memory, many posters are going to feel like absolute plonkers in the cold light of day.

Can you blame them though? We all have our favourites.

I still have a massive soft spot for Mourinho, even though he may have not been the best fit for us.

ETH though, has not shown anything at the 'big stage' that shows he is ready to play with the big boys.

 

[VP89]

I can imagine.




You are doing that thing again where you make things up in your head that you think people have said.



So McTominay got it.

And again I never said I thought Eriksen or Amrabat were seen as first choice.

But clearly they were integral to Ten Hags midfield plans unlike McTominay. Because as you emphatically pointed out over the last 3 pages, Ten Hag wanted to sell him.

I think you're losing track of what is being debated so let's bring it back.

McTominay is not in ten hags plans, because he wanted to sell him. And your notion that McTominay was preferred to mount by design over 5 games is also bollocks, given mount was still returning from injury.

What else do you have?

 

[stevoc]

Both were options to buy. However Amrabat’s loan fee is £8.5m. Whereas Raya’s is £3m. The only metal gymnastics there are yours.

The comparison to Campbell, Lewandowski and Messi was to point out that a transfer being free has nothing to do with the player’s status in the squad as you were saying. Therefore it’s not “a stretch”, it’s a relevant example. You don’t even have to have powers of comprehension to grasp that point, I literally spelt it out for you, but there we are.

And Eriksen was clearly a key part of ETH’s plans or he wouldn’t have picked him 44 times last season.

I don’t even understand why this is a discussion. Managers sign players all the time. Managers are judged on their transfer record all the time. Usually nobody finds either of those things hugely contentious.

What is it about ETH that inspires such loyalty that any area in which he is criticised is suddenly no longer in his job description? How can nothing be his responsibility?

It's quire simple really, if it's something that worked out well Ten Hag was responsible (like the dizzying 3rd place finish last year).

On the other hand if it hasn't or isn't working out well, then it was not his responsibility in any way. Like the clusterfeck that is this seasonit that's all down to a combination of the worst injury crisis in the history of football, the Glazers, hectic fixture congestion last season, toxic squad culture, the 2022 World Cup, Scott McTominay etc.

As to why Ten Hag inspires such loyalty?

I reckon it's actually nothing to do with him personally. Some United fans just revere the position of Manchester United manager regardless of who is in the position.

 

[Member 58925]

Why are you talking about that period though?

When I was clearly referring to Mount's current injury which occured in November. In the 5 games leading up to the last time he was fit he was on the bench for all 5 while McTominay started.

So please explain how am I incorrect again?

McTominay started for Mount? I'll be happy to explain why you're wrong.

October 7th vs Brentford - Mount starts, McTominay on the bench
October 21 vs Sheffield United - McTominay starts in place of Casemiro so in other words not Mount's position
October 24 vs Copenhagen - McTominay starts for Casemiro
October 29 vs City - McTominay starts for Casemiro
November 1st vs Newcastle - Mount starts alongside Casemiro despite McTominay being available, and McTominay is where? You guessed it, on the bench
November 4th vs Fulham - McTominay starts for Casemiro

Last season when there were far less injury issues, who was behind Casemiro at the 6 again? Hmmm.....

You're still completely lost

 

[stevoc]

I think you're losing track of what is being debated so let's bring it back.

McTominay is not in ten hags plans, because he wanted to sell him. And your notion that McTominay was preferred to mount by design over 5 games is also bollocks, given mount was still returning from injury.

What else do you have?

More like I'm losing the will to live, reading this constant stream.

It isn't bolllocks though, its a fact mate.

I know you don't like those pesky things as they get in the way of the narratives you like to spin to deflect all criticism away from Ten Hag. But it's a fact nonetheless.

McTominay started 5 games out of 6 games as he was preferred to Mount, who was on the bench in 5 of those 6 games.

Fahct!

Edit except for the league Cup game against Newcastle. Thanks @UDontMessWith24

 

[Member 58925]

More like I'm losing the will to live, reading this constant stream.

It isn't bolllocks though, its a fact mate.

I know you don't like those pesky things as they get in the way of the narratives you like to spin to deflect all criticism away from Ten Hag. But it's a fact nonetheless.

McTominay started 5 games in a row as he was preferred to Mount, who was on the bench in all 5 games.

Fahct!

Scroll up a bit and take a good hard look at how completely wrong your facts are.

 

[stevoc]

McTominay started for Mount? I'll be happy to explain why you're wrong.

October 7th vs Brentford - Mount starts, McTominay on the bench
October 21 vs Sheffield United - McTominay starts in place of Casemiro so in other words not Mount's position
October 24 vs Copenhagen - McTominay starts for Casemiro
October 29 vs City - McTominay starts for Casemiro
November 1st vs Newcastle - Mount starts alongside Casemiro despite McTominay being available, and McTominay is where? You guessed it, on the bench
November 4th vs Fulham - McTominay starts for Casemiro

You're still completely lost

The Newcastle game doesn't count Ten Hag was resting his big guns for that one.

Seriously though I forgot about the Newcastle game. Still McTominay was preferred over Mount in the 5 other games in the lead up to his injury.

 

[Member 58925]

That's literally all we get from Ten Hag fanbase. Throwing insults at everyone, considering their opinion as the ultimate fact that can't be disputed, and refuse to answer any logical question that might shake their opinions. Basically you summarized your agenda in one small sentence. There's a reason this forum has become terrible.

They were sacked, there's your answer. Who sacked them?

 

[Member 58925]

The Newcastle game doesn't count Ten Hag was resting his big guns for that one.

Seriously though I forgot about the Newcastle game. Still McTominay was preferred over Mount in the 5 other games in the lead up to his injury.

I thought his injury was in November. The last match in November was against Luton and McTominay once again started for Casemiro. You are dead wrong whether you admit it or not.

 

[Sarni]

We're paying him £150,000 a week! That isn't a cheap acquisition. Also suggests he might have had other well-paid offers. Free doesn't always mean squaddie grunt. In the same way that Matip wasn't a squaddie grunt for the scouse. It's a weird argument to try and frame Eriksen as some no-mark, inconsequential signing that shouldn't be factored into the squad-building.

Brentford were willing to make him their highest paid player I think. £7m a year is decent money for a good squad player.

 

[Daydreamer]

Eriksen was never seen as a player who we thought would be called upon frequently for more than 1 or 2 seasons. Do you understand this? Let's start here for now so we can then debate the other areas. You give personal insults on comprehension and take lazy logic yourself in understandings Eriksens role in the medium term.

When he signed everyone saw it as a good short term move for immediate impact.

Also, not all loans are seen as permanent moves. Whilst wholly accepting that you had Raya as option (I was reading ESPN that said obligation, but grant athletic will know best), you need to also understand that dumpster diving on loans because you can't fork out more than 10m eur on a midfielder severely limits the talent pool you're going for. Suggesting Amrabat was part of ten hags big strategy is a stretch because he was working with the cards he was dealt, which is no real funds for a free, and a tiny budget, and players available to come in cheap. If he had Gravenberch money he'd probably get him, we were linked too.

If he had Gakpo money in Jan, he'd have probably got him. He didn't loan Weghorst because he wanted him badly. It's opportunistic with a shit hand, and that's essentially what Amrabat was.

We can't count Eriksen because he was a free transfer (despite earning £150k p/w)
We can't count Amrabat because he was a loan (despite costing an £8.5m loan fee)

Reading elsewhere...

We can't count Onana because he's important to the way you play (despite having some decidedly average ball-playing stats)
We can't count Hojland because he's not been available for every game (despite making 30 appearances by March)
We can't count Mount because he's been injured (despite often being overlooked when fit)
We can't count Varane because he's been injured (despite also often being overlooked when fit)
We can't count Antony because he was practically forced on ETH (despite him being a former player who's signing ETH approved)

Style of play, defensive structure, controlling the midfield, creating chances... none of this the Manager's responsibility at United, apparently.

He can't be expected to coach the team if he doesn't have a fully fit squad to choose from.

He can't have his transfer record criticised because he doesn't have total control over signings (despite no Manager - not even Wenger / Ferguson - ever having total control over transfers).

Don't you find it even the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance in suggesting praising ETH for his "overachievement" last season, while insisting that basically nothing is his fault this season?

 

[Alex99]

Not that this matters, as City were clearly playing far more difficult opposition, but @UDontMessWith24 was specifically talking about how (apparently uniquely) difficult United's post-WC schedule was. I actually think City had more games than anyone in the second half of the season.

But I'm just being pedantic with you. The simple fact is, of all the excuses to make for ETH, dealing with a season that had a WC in the middle (like literally every other Manager) is a right up there.

I have been slightly confused at the lines of argument at times here.

Both sides of it have committed to weird points.

I just want people to focus on the actual pertinent issues, rather than repeat these endless debates about things that have (or should have) little or nothing to do with him.

We're a tactical mess, regardless of injuries. We haven't committed fully to (what we think is) Ten Hag's preferred style, nor have we covered for the apparent deficiencies in personnel by temporarily reverting to a more pragmatic style.

He spent a good few weeks benching Varane for apparent tactical reasons, only to later have him fill the tactical role he was apparently wholly unsuitable for.

I think there's also some room for discussion about his general man management. While I'm supportive of the decisions to remove Ronaldo and Sancho from the squad, there's definitely something odd going on with Rashford this season, and there have been murmurings of discontent surrounding a couple of other players too.

None of this is ever really talked about, and instead we end up with seemingly endless discussions about just how much control he has of transfers, how shit Antony is, Scott McTominay's role in the squad, and contextless comparisons to Villa/Spurs/Brighton/Newcastle (delete as applicable).

 

[stevoc]

I thought his injury was in November. The last match in November was against Luton and McTominay once again started for Casemiro. You are dead wrong whether you admit it or not.

His injury was in November.

Well I'm not wrong though am I. Before his injury McTominay was picked to start over Mount in 5 games. Before Scott's two goals off the bench vs Brentford Mount had been starting.

Casemiro wasn't even in the squad for those 5 games.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Why are you talking about that period though?

When I was clearly referring to Mount's current injury which occured in November. In the 5 games leading up to the last time he was fit he was on the bench for all 5 while McTominay started.

So please explain how am I incorrect again?

Because thats when the manager starts with his actual plans? At the start of the season where clearly he preferred Mount over Scott so your comment about Scott being preferred over Mount goes down the gutter.

Mount was out for 5 weeks with injury and do you expect him to be back in the squad straight away? And do you not realize at that time McTominay was the only one scoring goals for the team so an argument can be made there as to why a player who was scoring goals wasn't dropped for a player who was injured for 5 weeks.

 

[stevoc]

Because thats when the manager starts with his actual plans? At the start of the season where clearly he preferred Mount over Scott so your comment about Scott being preferred over Mount goes down the gutter.

Mount was out for 5 weeks with injury and do you expect him to be back in the squad straight away? And do you not realize at that time McTominay was the only one scoring goals for the team so an argument can be made there as to why a player who was scoring goals wasn't dropped for a player who was injured for 5 weeks.

Mount started the two games before McTominay's run in the side in that period.

Ok let's make it simpler. Was Scott McTominay picked to start in 5 games when Mount was on the bench, in the lead up to Mount's injury at the end of November?

The answer is yes. Now read my post that you originally replied to again.

Ten Hag has a system?

Clearly this season Ten Hag thinks Scotts more optimal than 3 of his own midfield signings for whatever he is trying to do this season. Even before Mount was injured Scott was playing ahead of him.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Eriksen was the same age as Casemiro when we signed him. And he'll likely see out his 3-year contract here. If he can't be considered a signing that was done with a view to the future, by the same token neither can Casemiro. Which begs the question, why was ten Hag happy to sign off on bringing him in for £65m?

I'd imagine it was because we'd just lost our first two games, needed a midfielder, and Casemiro was made available to the club. You could also ask why Murtough signed off seeing as it's literally his job to plan for the future. Managers push for ready made players all the time since it's such a results based job. Is it really so hard to understand?

 

[el3mel]

They were sacked, there's your answer. Who sacked them?

Are you acting like United fans didn't want the previous managers to be sacked and the decision was solely thanks to the board against the fans' point of view ? Why did we sack them if it was impossible for any manager to succeed under Glazers ?

Should have kept Moyes from the start then.

 

[VP89]

We can't count Eriksen because he was a free transfer (despite earning £150k p/w)
We can't count Amrabat because he was a loan (despite costing an £8.5m loan fee)

Reading elsewhere...

We can't count Onana because he's important to the way you play (despite having some decidedly average ball-playing stats)
We can't count Hojland because he's not been available for every game (despite making 30 appearances by March)
We can't count Mount because he's been injured (despite often being overlooked when fit)
We can't count Varane because he's been injured (despite also often being overlooked when fit)
We can't count Antony because he was practically forced on ETH (despite him being a former player who's signing ETH approved)

Style of play, defensive structure, controlling the midfield, creating chances... none of this the Manager's responsibility at United, apparently.

He can't be expected to coach the team if he doesn't have a fully fit squad to choose from.

He can't have his transfer record criticised because he doesn't have total control over signings (despite no Manager - not even Wenger / Ferguson - ever having total control over transfers).

Don't you find it even the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance in suggesting praising ETH for his "overachievement" last season, while insisting that basically nothing is his fault this season?

I'm sorry, what are you actually referring to now? When you say we can't count Eriksen or Onana, what specifically are you talking about?

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Mount started the two games before McTominay's run in the side in that period.

Ok let's make it simpler. Was Scott McTominay picked to start in 5 games when Mount was on the bench, in the lead up to Mount's injury at the end of November?

The answer is yes. Now read my post that you originally replied to again.

If you choose to ignore any sort of context surrounding why McTominay was preferred then there's no point arguing. You clearly don't understand the concept of introducing a player back into the team after injury especially when this player was just bought last summer and had had a grand total of 2 games for the club under his belt.

 

[VP89]

More like I'm losing the will to live, reading this constant stream.

It isn't bolllocks though, its a fact mate.

I know you don't like those pesky things as they get in the way of the narratives you like to spin to deflect all criticism away from Ten Hag. But it's a fact nonetheless.

McTominay started 5 games out of 6 games as he was preferred to Mount, who was on the bench in 5 of those 6 games.

Fahct!

Edit except for the league Cup game against Newcastle. Thanks @UDontMessWith24

You're making up bollocks that McTominay started specifically over Mount, which another poster has already carved out for you. It's astounding how weak this point is.

 

[Lay]

I see.

Basically well done to Ten Hag for performing miracles getting a makeshift defence functioning, but it's not his fault that the entire team play terrible football because he can only do so much.

I feel like I'm being gaslighted when I enter this thread

It's actually crazy at this point. How the feck ETH has this much support is beyond me.

 

[redcucumber]

I'd imagine it was because we'd just lost our first two games, needed a midfielder, and Casemiro was made available to the club. You could also ask why Murtough signed off seeing as it's literally his job to plan for the future. Managers push for ready made players all the time since it's such a results based job. Is it really so hard to understand?

"I set requirements in advance about how I want to work," he told Dutch outlet Trouw.

"If they aren't granted, I won't do it. I am ultimately responsible and accounted for the results. I don't want to be the sole ruler, I stand for cooperation, but control in transfers is a condition for me."

I reckon if you asked ten Hag, he'd be bold enough to accept responsibility for how the squad building has gone since he came in. The club shouldn't have ceded to him but as he said, that was the only way to get him on board. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[stevoc]

You're making up bollocks that McTominay started specifically over Mount, which another poster has already carved out for you. It's astounding how weak this point is.

The guy who said McTominay was actually preferred over Casemiro not Mount? Casemiro who was injured and not even in the squad for those games.

You're making up bollocks that McTominay started specifically over Mount,

You well know that I've been saying McTominay has often been preferred to Amrabat, Eriksen and Mount. This shite discussion only started because someone erroneously tried to claim he only started games in place of Mount, because Mount was inured. When in fact he was preferred to Mount in games where Mount was fit too.

Ironically it's you once again making shit up.

 

[stevoc]

If you choose to ignore any sort of context surrounding why McTominay was preferred then there's no point arguing. You clearly don't understand the concept of introducing a player back into the team after injury especially when this player was just bought into the summer and had had a grand total of 2 games for the club under his belt.

So now I'm suddenly not incorrect, McTominay was preferred over Mount in those games and I'm just ignoring context. Ok mate glad we've sorted that one out.

Mount can start 2 games in a row, but then suddenly needed to be introduced back into the team slowly. Yeah ok, I'm sure that sudden realisation simply just coincided with McTominay going on a scoring run.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

It's actually crazy at this point. How the feck ETH has this much support is beyond me.

I'm not sure about the ETH support but I will definitely question the posters who think that there's a mystical manager out there who can get the best out of players who have failed multiple managers and have achieved feck all in their careers.

And by getting the best out of them, I mean playing a modern progressive brand of football. Good luck expecting Bruno and Rashford to actually respect possession for once, Maguire to be able to defend at the half way line and Shaw staying fit for more than 2 games.

ETH has his flaws, no doubt about that. I dont understand what the plan is but what I do understand is that we are going nowhere with these core group of players from previous regimes.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

So now I'm suddenly not incorrect, McTominay was preferred over Mount in those games and I'm just ignoring context. Ok mate glad we've sorted that one out.

Mount can start 2 games in a row, but then suddenly needed to be introduced back into the team slowly. Yeah ok, I'm sure that sudden realisation simply just coincided with McTominay going on a scoring run.

At this point i dont know if you are deliberately being dumb. A fit player can start any number of games in a row whereas a player coming out of injury can't simply just come back into the team.

And to repeat for the 3rd time, you are incorrect.

 

[stevoc]

At this point i dont know if you are deliberately being dumb. A fit player can start any number of games in a row whereas a player coming out of injury can't simply just come back into the team.

Are you?

What the feck are you even trying to say here mate?

Mount started 2 games as he was fit, in one of those games McTominay came off the bench and scored two goals to win the game. After that match and for 5 of the next 6 matches McTominay started over Mount. Clearly from that point onwards before Mount was injured, McTominay was being preferred.

What point if any are you trying to make?

And to repeat for the 3rd time, you are incorrect.

Nope as you admitted in your last post.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

I'm not sure about the ETH support but I will definitely question the posters who think that there's a mystical manager out there who can get the best out of players who have failed multiple managers and have achieved feck all in their careers.

And by getting the best out of them, I mean playing a modern progressive brand of football. Good luck expecting Bruno and Rashford to actually respect possession for once, Maguire to be able to defend at the half way line and Shaw staying fit for more than 2 games.

ETH has his flaws, no doubt about that. I dont understand what the plan is but what I do understand is that we are going nowhere with these core group of players from previous regimes.

I think you’d find the majority of people in here wanting Ten Hag gone are not also fully attached to any of those players you named or think they’ve been incredibly let down by the manager.

My only question is what the feck would it take for some in here to actually flip from defending ETH to finally wanting him gone? Another season of shit play and poor results? What happens when someone from our first XI gets injured, do we absolve the manager again of everything after that? Or do we need another 2 summers because 1 summer under INEOS isn’t enough? It’s a seemingly endless stream of excuses for every criticism those of us have had of Ten Hags reign to the point where it’s almost disingenuous. You’d think some posters were direct family members or had a financial interest in him staying as manager. Its baffling to me

 

[pocco]

Yes there are many posts from those wanting him out insinuating full or total control, despite being corrected many times.


Eh? Not at all. He repositioned McTominay into a second striker off the bench or a 10 to come in and get us a goal, because he knows that's where he can milk his value. If Rashford was firing and Hojlund didn't need to settle a bit I doubt you'd see us being so desperate to bring him on.

Poor management would be failing to milk the assets while you have him.

Bit of mental gymnastics here. There's a reason it's an option and not an obligation (such as say, Raya). Il let you work out why that's the case, but it's certainly not because we are set on keeping him.

Also comparing Eriksen, a midfielder whos legs are going to Lewandowski, a striker smashing 40 goals for Bayern the year before is stretching to put it nicely.

If you want to run with the logic that Eriksen was part of Ten Hag's long term vision then go for it. It's clear Eriksen was an injection of experience and technical quality needed to overlay the squad, which he inherited with Pereira, Pogba, Matic and Mata out the door. A free transfer punt was great value, but it wasn't some long term plan.

According to The Athletic, because of our FFP situation at the time. There were reports after only a few weeks also that we were going to exercise the option to buy. Obviously when he turned out shit that all changed and the narrative on here was that he was strictly a loan, even though everyone was going mad for us to sign the guy previously and we'd been trying to sign him all summer.

 

[Member 58925]

Are you acting like United fans didn't want the previous managers to be sacked and the decision was solely thanks to the board against the fans' point of view ? Why did we sack them if it was impossible for any manager to succeed under Glazers ?

Should have kept Moyes from the start then.

Who sacked them?

 

[pocco]

Are you?

What the feck are you even trying to say here mate?

Mount started 2 games as he was fit, in one of those games McTominay came off the bench and scored two goals to win the game. After that match and for 5 of the next 6 matches McTominay started over Mount. Clearly from that point onwards before Mount was injured, McTominay was being preferred.

What point if any are you trying to make?



Nope as you admitted in your last post.

It was obvious to everyone at the time that ETH thought he'd finally stumbled on something that would work with McTominay and flogged it to death, even if it meant dropping Mount. Much like his hideous idea of playing Weghorst as a no10 and moving Bruno out wide, after one good cameo there vs Leeds I think.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Are you?

What the feck are you even trying to say here mate?

Mount started 2 games as he was fit, in one of those games McTominay came off the bench and scored two goals to win the game. After that match and for 5 of the next 6 matches McTominay started over Mount. Clearly from that point onwards before Mount was injured, McTominay was being preferred.

What point if any are you trying to make?



Nope as you admitted in your last post.

I admitted nothing but feel free to believe that if it makes you happy.

 

[stevoc]

It was obvious to everyone at the time that ETH thought he'd finally stumbled on something that would work with McTominay and flogged it to death, even if it meant dropping Mount. Much like his hideous idea of playing Weghorst as a no10 and moving Bruno out wide, after one good cameo there vs Leeds I think.

Yep exactly, it feels the same doesn't it?

I'd forgot about Weghorst as a no10, in hindsight the red flags were there about Ten Hag even last season.

 

[el3mel]

Who sacked them?

The board.

Would you have kept any of them ?

 

[stevoc]

I admitted nothing but feel free to believe that if it makes you happy.

Ok mate. Let's leave the discussion there then.

Ok let's make it simpler. Was Scott McTominay picked to start in 5 games when Mount was on the bench, in the lead up to Mount's injury at the end of November?

The answer is yes. Now read my post that you originally replied to again.

If you choose to ignore any sort of context surrounding why McTominay was preferred then there's no point arguing.

 

[Member 58925]

His injury was in November.

Well I'm not wrong though am I. Before his injury McTominay was picked to start over Mount in 5 games. Before Scott's two goals off the bench vs Brentford Mount had been starting.

Casemiro wasn't even in the squad for those 5 games.

Very good. Who replaced him in the starting lineup? Scott McTominay. It wasn't until Casemiro and Mainoo's return from injury that McTominay was started playing in Mount's position, by which time of course Mount was not available.