Grealish To City? | City bid £100M

Status
Not open for further replies.
marktan said:
That's an over-simplistic view, just because stats are numbers doesn't mean they allow for like-for-like comparisons or show the objective truth. If it was a 100m sprint sure, but football is a team game. There's about 10 different factors you have to take into account when comparing stats for someone like Sancho and Grealish.

For instance, assists. In Villa's first season up, their strikers Samatta and Davies managed 1 league goal between them in 36 games. They sign watkins and the assists go up.

Goal's scored. Sancho's got more in the league in the last 2 seasons, but the % of their teams goals they've scored is pretty much the same, because Dortmund simply create and score far more goals (and that too in 34 games).

Then you have the rest of the team, what do the midfielders do, what does the other wide forward do, what's the style of play of the team they come up against? Stats isn't just plucking out numbers and comparing them, it's interpreting the data, combining it with other stats, and when it comes to football crucially still relying on the eye-test and expert opinion on players to discern a player's level.

For me it's simple having watched most of Villa's games over the last 2 seasons, with better players around him Grealish's stats will shoot right up. He'll spend more time near the opposition goal, won't be the only creator, will have multiple players that can finish, make space with runns. In fact I'd be far happier if they signed Kane, despite City needing a striker, because I think Grealish is the more unique player. The ability to beat a man, play the perfectly weighted pass, all of that is rarer and rarer at the top level.
Click to expand...
Yep. Spot on. He's a unique talent and I've been saying it for 2 years now. He's gonna sky rocket at City.

I hope Sancho is as good as people are making out but I believe Grealish would have transformed us even more so than City and even more than Bruno.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
It feels a bit odd to come to a Manchester United forum and have fans suggesting they'd swap their talisman and most productive player in recent years for Jack Grealish, a talented player, but one with only 15 goals and 16 assists in 96 matches.

Fernandes has managed 26 goals and 19 assists in almost half as many Premier League games.

Maybe it's Grealish's 34% shooting accuracy? Or perhaps it's his 23% cross accuracy? It could even be the 26 "big chances" he's created in his ninety six Premier League matches. Perhaps it's Grealish's youth? At an entire year younger than Bruno Fernandes, he has the potential to play for a couple of extra seasons in which to close the glaring statistical gap, though he's already squandered the opportunity in the 45 more Premier League games he's played than Fernandes.

I dunno, get rid of Fernandes and pay twice what he cost the club for a player who has achieved half as much? Maybe, he sure does have nice hair.
Click to expand...
Sticky this.
 
I honestly don't know why are they signing him, if there is a Mancity fan who could further elaborate on this (as they are looking at all their matches, so more informed than me). For me I think the sole reason for this signing is, because he is available, we need to buy somebody and he is a great player. They already have players which are more or less similar to Grealish in Foden/Mahrez/Silva . Grealish is a not a pace merchant like Sane, he is a good ball carrier and good in tight spaces and makes good choices and a great dribbler, I feel like I am explaining Silva/Mahrez & Foden again.

What they actually needed, admittedly this is from the matches against top teams i watched them, they needed a reliable CM alongside Rodri who can control the midfield and provide strong defensive support (someone like Goretza, Renato Sanches, Thiago or somebody of that level would be perfect). Currently they have Debruyne and Gundogen they are both very good on the ball but very weak defensively and slow, which means they are caught off-guard on counter against top sides, this is also something Ole uses very well against them.

Plus they lack a genuine CF, who would hold the ball and bring others into play, coupled with get at the end of crosses, somebody like Haaland/Kane would be perfect for them. Because for all the tiki taka, if you don't have goal scorers in the side, it will all go to waste.

The are unlikely to change their midfield three of De-Bruyne, Gundogen & Rodri. Which ever of Grealish, Foden, Silva they will use in place of De-Bruyne/Gundogen it will just make their midfield even easier to bypass against any half decent side.

Plus they can only use 3 of Mahrez, Silva, Foden, Jesus, Grealish & Torres in the front 3. But this front 3 have plenty of dribblers and ball hoggers and very few top goal scorers, adding Kane to this side would be scary and rightfully it may mean goodbye to all challengers but adding Grealish to already amazing set of dribblers and ball carriers is nothing to be worried about.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
It feels a bit odd to come to a Manchester United forum and have fans suggesting they'd swap their talisman and most productive player in recent years for Jack Grealish, a talented player, but one with only 15 goals and 16 assists in 96 matches.

Fernandes has managed 26 goals and 19 assists in almost half as many Premier League games.

Maybe it's Grealish's 34% shooting accuracy? Or perhaps it's his 23% cross accuracy? It could even be the 26 "big chances" he's created in his ninety six Premier League matches. Perhaps it's Grealish's youth? At an entire year younger than Bruno Fernandes, he has the potential to play for a couple of extra seasons in which to close the glaring statistical gap, though he's already squandered the opportunity in the 45 more Premier League games he's played than Fernandes.

I dunno, get rid of Fernandes and pay twice what he cost the club for a player who has achieved half as much? Maybe, he sure does have nice hair.
Click to expand...

If I could give you 9 more likes for this post I would.
 
RkkMan said:
How do you know we weren't interested but after assessment concluded he wasn't a viable investment considering
1. His best positions are not £100m holes in our team(LW/No10)
2. A younger player with a MUCH higher ceiling in Sancho, that happens to be a long term target and more natural at RW was available for less(and he's another player Fergie would have pulled all stops to sign BTW)
3. There were other positions we needed to address like CB(Varane) and potentially DM which would have been hindered by spending £100m on one player
And if you were here you'd know Grealish was a target last year and we'd have gotten him if Goal Line Technology worked but Villa's survival priced him out of a move. You simply can't have them all and we've not missed out on anything as we've signed Sancho who's one of the best U23s in World Football and a top 10 CB in the world in Varane for the fee we'd have gotten a square peg in a round hole for
Click to expand...
I agree about getting him had Villa been relegated - and absolutely nothing else. This idea that the guy is only a winger is a joke and if you really think (even with our new players) that we are good enough in midfield to even challenge for the title (let alone win it), I'm not sure you'e been watching us enough.

You ask how I know we weren't interested... what evidence do you have to show that we were...?
 
Olecurls99 said:
Yep. Spot on. He's a unique talent and I've been saying it for 2 years now. He's gonna sky rocket at City.

I hope Sancho is as good as people are making out but I believe Grealish would have transformed us even more so than City and even more than Bruno.
Click to expand...
On what basis do you think he would have transformed United more than Bruno? He is not even 50% Bruno's level of effectiveness.
 
Olecurls99 said:
Yep. Spot on. He's a unique talent and I've been saying it for 2 years now. He's gonna sky rocket at City.

I hope Sancho is as good as people are making out but I believe Grealish would have transformed us even more so than City and even more than Bruno.
Click to expand...
Sancho is phenomenal. He will go on to be better than Grealish. But he's also just 21 and miles ahead of Grealish was at this stage of this career. He'll also be coming to a much weaker team under a lesser manager. So people need to temper expectations.

As for Grealish vs Bruno, no issue with people thinking Grealish is better as he is far better on the ball (dribbling, control etc). But a player having Bruno's ridiculous impact on us is a rare thing and has as much to do with gelling /chemistry with team mates. Bruno has struck a chord at United and I'm not sure mere ability does that. So I'm skeptical of Grealish having such an impact on United.
 
Highfather_24 said:
I think this debate has less to do with being upset that City got a player or that we need him. I think its primarily about how good Grealish is.

Group A thinks thinks he's a brilliant player, who is among the best in PL, and will be a big difference maker at City. Would get into any team. Up there with Bruno and KdB.

Groups B thinks he's a good player, but will struggle at City, will not stand out and just be one of their many attackers. Might not even start at United over Rashford or Sancho. Like a Willian.

Since there is a difference in evaluation, Group A thinks Group B is downplaying his ability(sour grapes), and Group B thinks Group A is overrating him(media hype). I guess we will see when the season starts. I'm firmly in Group A.
Click to expand...
Group A all day.

This stats obsession is tedious. My eyes tell me all I need to know about him.
 
mitchmouse said:
the fact that we seem to be showing no interest in one of the top players in the country (one who has made little secret about liking the club) shows how far we have fallen. Fergie would have at the very least have been interested - we were always interested when a top talent became available
Click to expand...
Fergie is not paying 100m for any player. This is a ridiculous take. You can't buy everyone.
 
Gutted he’s going to City, but he’s worth more to Villa than we’d pay to get him. If they’d gone down a couple of years back I think he’d be here right now.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
It feels a bit odd to come to a Manchester United forum and have fans suggesting they'd swap their talisman and most productive player in recent years for Jack Grealish, a talented player, but one with only 15 goals and 16 assists in 96 matches.

Fernandes has managed 26 goals and 19 assists in almost half as many Premier League games.

Maybe it's Grealish's 34% shooting accuracy? Or perhaps it's his 23% cross accuracy? It could even be the 26 "big chances" he's created in his ninety six Premier League matches. Perhaps it's Grealish's youth? At an entire year younger than Bruno Fernandes, he has the potential to play for a couple of extra seasons in which to close the glaring statistical gap, though he's already squandered the opportunity in the 45 more Premier League games he's played than Fernandes.

I dunno, get rid of Fernandes and pay twice what he cost the club for a player who has achieved half as much? Maybe, he sure does have nice hair.
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on
 
Herman Toothrot said:
It feels a bit odd to come to a Manchester United forum and have fans suggesting they'd swap their talisman and most productive player in recent years for Jack Grealish, a talented player, but one with only 15 goals and 16 assists in 96 matches.

Fernandes has managed 26 goals and 19 assists in almost half as many Premier League games.

Maybe it's Grealish's 34% shooting accuracy? Or perhaps it's his 23% cross accuracy? It could even be the 26 "big chances" he's created in his ninety six Premier League matches. Perhaps it's Grealish's youth? At an entire year younger than Bruno Fernandes, he has the potential to play for a couple of extra seasons in which to close the glaring statistical gap, though he's already squandered the opportunity in the 45 more Premier League games he's played than Fernandes.

I dunno, get rid of Fernandes and pay twice what he cost the club for a player who has achieved half as much? Maybe, he sure does have nice hair.
Click to expand...
I don't know who said that but it's brainless to swap Bruno for Grealish especially given the former fits our team brilliantly. Talent with the ball at one's feet is not everything - see hoe Pogba has had issues in our team despite being arguably the most talented midfielder (sort-of) on the planet in terms of natural ability
 
mitchmouse said:
I agree about getting him had Villa been relegated - and absolutely nothing else. This idea that the guy is only a winger is a joke and if you really think (even with our new players) that we are good enough in midfield to even challenge for the title (let alone win it), I'm not sure you'e been watching us enough.

You ask how I know we weren't interested... what evidence do you have to show that we were...?
Click to expand...
You yourself have admitted we'd have gotten him if Villa got relegated meaning you knew we were after him then. This year there's nothing out there to show interest was there but I'm 100% sure the transfer people and scouts had discussed him. I saw an article somewhere some months back from The Telegraph saying that the players prefer Grealish but Ole wanted Sancho which shows discussions happened behind the scenes
Anyway that's beside the point, I NEVER said he's only a winger and even if he came to play in midfield(which would make us imbalanced IMO) do you hand on heart genuinely see him starting week in week out ahead of Bruno and Pogba(if he stays)? If Pogba left he'd probably make sense but assuming he stays and we add a competent DM name me 3 midfields in the PL better than Bruno, Pogba and a solid DM. Our midfield literally just lacks an anchor NOT another Attacking Midfielder :lol:
 
He's a good player but 100M? :lol: Honestly don't understand why some posters are losing their minds that he's off to City. If Utd decided to spend that type of money on a player like him, i'd be seriously questioning the people at the club making those decisions.
 
jackal&hyde said:
I hope he does go to City so we can have an end to the cult of Grealish.
Click to expand...
Judging by the comments in here it'll never end. He could be benched after a couple of months and the cult (mostly United fans and the English media... because feck me this is the only fan forum outside Villa I see such hype of Grealish) will find ways to blame Pep, just like they do Southgate even after reaching the finals with his decisions and losing only on pens. A cult always finds excuses and there'll be plenty for the £100m pound darling should things go south.
 
TrueRed79 said:
He's a good player but 100M? :lol: Honestly don't understand why some posters are losing their minds that he's off to City. If Utd decided to spend that type of money on a player like him, i'd be seriously questioning the people at the club making those decisions.
Click to expand...
And how on earth can we spend that on him when we hage Bruno /Pogba and Rahsford in his position?! Were not state funded FFS. We need CMs/DMs not Grealish.
 
Lingard looked better at West Ham in the last 6 months than Grealish did at Villa all last year.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
It feels a bit odd to come to a Manchester United forum and have fans suggesting they'd swap their talisman and most productive player in recent years for Jack Grealish, a talented player, but one with only 15 goals and 16 assists in 96 matches.

Fernandes has managed 26 goals and 19 assists in almost half as many Premier League games.

Maybe it's Grealish's 34% shooting accuracy? Or perhaps it's his 23% cross accuracy? It could even be the 26 "big chances" he's created in his ninety six Premier League matches. Perhaps it's Grealish's youth? At an entire year younger than Bruno Fernandes, he has the potential to play for a couple of extra seasons in which to close the glaring statistical gap, though he's already squandered the opportunity in the 45 more Premier League games he's played than Fernandes.

I dunno, get rid of Fernandes and pay twice what he cost the club for a player who has achieved half as much? Maybe, he sure does have nice hair.
Click to expand...

Grealish is massively overrated. Good player yes but that's about it. I personally think that he won't make a huge difference at City with the likes of KDB / Foden he doesn't bring much diversity to City's team. It's not so much his limitations as a professional but rather the strength of city's current first 11.

If he could play on the right then I think he would be a good addition because the dynamics they would have in attack. The only way Grealish is of any use is if Pep has some master plan to implement him without sacrificing the balance of the team.
 
Castia said:
Lingard looked better at West Ham in the last 6 months than Grealish did at Villa all last year.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? He was in the running for PFA player of year at fecking Aston Villa before injury derailed him. :lol:

Does this fact seemingly not move anyone? And before anyone points out other big fishes in small ponds....... None of them were the best single performing player in the league, were they? None of them came off the bench in an international tournament and made Southgate look like a mug everytime for benching him.

PL form and difference maker in the Euros. At which point do we concede that playing in a better team won't reduce his performance levels?
 
Last edited:
Herman Toothrot said:
It feels a bit odd to come to a Manchester United forum and have fans suggesting they'd swap their talisman and most productive player in recent years for Jack Grealish, a talented player, but one with only 15 goals and 16 assists in 96 matches.

Fernandes has managed 26 goals and 19 assists in almost half as many Premier League games.

Maybe it's Grealish's 34% shooting accuracy? Or perhaps it's his 23% cross accuracy? It could even be the 26 "big chances" he's created in his ninety six Premier League matches. Perhaps it's Grealish's youth? At an entire year younger than Bruno Fernandes, he has the potential to play for a couple of extra seasons in which to close the glaring statistical gap, though he's already squandered the opportunity in the 45 more Premier League games he's played than Fernandes.

I dunno, get rid of Fernandes and pay twice what he cost the club for a player who has achieved half as much? Maybe, he sure does have nice hair.
Click to expand...

If ever someone deserves promotion from their first post ☝
 
Castia said:
Lingard looked better at West Ham in the last 6 months than Grealish did at Villa all last year.
Click to expand...
Thats not a s bad shout. Lingards run matches anything Jack did last season, he almost took a mid table team to CL qualification. No big team advantage for Jesse
 
Hoof The Ball said:
What are you talking about? He was in the running for PFA player of year at fecking Aston Villa before injury derailed him. :lol:

Does this fact seemingly not move anyone? And before anyone points out other big fishes in small ponds....... None of them were the best single performing player in the league, were they?
Click to expand...

Milner won young player of the year at Villa though it's not entirely the same.

As far as I can see it Grealish is a good at domestic level but having never played in the champions league it's hard to scope if he would thrive at a club with far bigger expectations because we have not seen him outside the environment of the premier League aside the championship.

He has to be better then he is at Villa in order to excel at city because of the level of players that are around him especially being that he's statistically a creative player. It's different for a striker or forward who is goal hungry because the better players around them means more chances created whereas Grealish has to figure out how to be effective with the likes of KDB, Foden and Gundogan all having an influence in city's phases of play.
 
Castia said:
Lingard looked better at West Ham in the last 6 months than Grealish did at Villa all last year.
Click to expand...
I refuse to believe someone could have seen both of them actually play and still reach this conclusion
 
Varun said:
I refuse to believe someone could have seen both of them actually play and still reach this conclusion
Click to expand...

it was more tongue in cheek but tbh there is some truth to that. Obviously Grealish is better than Lingard but it shows how a decent player playing in a mediocre team can stand out.

For me Grealish doesn’t score enough goals or get enough assists and the recent hype is absolutely crazy he’s had 2 decent seasons in the PL and thats it. The recent hype train is just bizarre he’s been out injured for months and barely made the Euro side yet his stock has risen to Messi like levels it’s fecking stupid.
 
Castia said:
it was more tongue in cheek but tbh there is some truth to that. Obviously Grealish is better than Lingard but it shows how a decent player playing in a mediocre team can stand out.

For me Grealish doesn’t score enough goals or get enough assists and the recent hype is absolutely crazy he’s had 2 decent seasons in the PL and thats it. The recent hype train is just bizarre he’s been out injured for months and barely made the Euro side yet his stock has risen to Messi like levels it’s fecking stupid.
Click to expand...
Hypocritical to suggest Lingard was better and then call the other side bizarre, stupid etc don't you think? The entire problem with this thread is that there are 2 extremes yet each side only blame the other for taking the extreme stance.
 
Herman Toothrot said:
It feels a bit odd to come to a Manchester United forum and have fans suggesting they'd swap their talisman and most productive player in recent years for Jack Grealish, a talented player, but one with only 15 goals and 16 assists in 96 matches.

Fernandes has managed 26 goals and 19 assists in almost half as many Premier League games.

Maybe it's Grealish's 34% shooting accuracy? Or perhaps it's his 23% cross accuracy? It could even be the 26 "big chances" he's created in his ninety six Premier League matches. Perhaps it's Grealish's youth? At an entire year younger than Bruno Fernandes, he has the potential to play for a couple of extra seasons in which to close the glaring statistical gap, though he's already squandered the opportunity in the 45 more Premier League games he's played than Fernandes.

I dunno, get rid of Fernandes and pay twice what he cost the club for a player who has achieved half as much? Maybe, he sure does have nice hair.
Click to expand...
Well said.

I like Grealish, and feel he has come on leaps and bounds in the last 18 months or so, but this narrative that he's an essential signing for us at £100-fecking-million just to stop City getting him is absolutely insane. Have people even looked at our own attacking options this season?

Grealish will be another of many good options for this City side, but he doesn't transform them into anything we haven't already seen from City.

Introduce Harry Kane into that equation, where their current options are Gabriel Jesus or a series of false 9's, and there's a legitimate case to be made that they cannot be stopped in the league this year. If this is the reaction to Grealish signing for City, I don't want to be around for that meltdown.
 
Varun said:
Hypocritical to suggest Lingard was better and then call the other side bizarre, stupid etc don't you think? The entire problem with this thread is that there are 2 extremes yet each side only blame the other for taking the extreme stance.
Click to expand...

To be honest yes that’s the entire problem with this thread, I think the vast majority would agree he’s a decent player but then there’s people talking about him being the best player in the league and that’s where things start getting ridiculous.

26 years old and before this summer had 7 caps for England. JLingz kept this guy out of the England squad for the last 4 years imagine that.
 
Olecurls99 said:
Yep. Spot on. He's a unique talent and I've been saying it for 2 years now. He's gonna sky rocket at City.

I hope Sancho is as good as people are making out but I believe Grealish would have transformed us even more so than City and even more than Bruno.
Click to expand...
Sancho will be very good for us. We just have to not bottleneck his abilities by playing static players who wont move. Its all down to Ole but I think he will get it right for 90 percent of our games.
 
mitchmouse said:
I think you'll find his possession stats are good - too many of our midfielders give the ball away cheaply. As for the price, well people screamed and said it was the end of the wold when Forest paid £1m for Francis - this is where we are right now. He may not be De Bruyne yet but he's 25 so he's got some of his best years to come unless something drastic happens.

the fact that we seem to be showing no interest in one of the top players in the country (one who has made little secret about liking the club) shows how far we have fallen. Fergie would have at the very least have been interested - we were always interested when a top talent became available
Click to expand...
Delusional to think Fergie will spend 100m on our strongest position. We have Sancho, Martial, Rashford, Pogba, and James who can all play there. You cant buy everyone.
 
I like Jack, he has a rather rare playing style, one you don't often see these days. My issues with him are:
- doesn't score enough
- doesn't assist enough
- shot and pass/cross accuracy are not the best
- is compared with a lot of players, especially great British ones and he's not fit yet to lace their boots

So until now, other than a few dribbles here and there, he has proven jack shit in the game. He's 25 and the only major good thing you can say about him is "he'd be good in team X or Y".
People suggesting a Bruno swap or that we should've went for him instead of Sancho are out of their minds or just trolling.

He's a good talented player, but based on what he achieved in the game until now he's still seen as a "25 year old prospect" in my eyes.
 
Judas said:
Fergie would have signed him years ago, think that's more so his point.
Click to expand...
Jack was 19/20 odd when SAF was last here? Its not as if SAF didnt scour the underage teams for talent and.. he wasn't signed.
Zaha was signed but not Jack.
 
Funny how often what people think SAF would have done happens to align with their own personal opinion as to what we should do.
 
cyberman said:
Jack was 19/20 odd when SAF was last here? Its not as if SAF didnt scour the underage teams for talent and.. he wasn't signed.
Zaha was signed but not Jack.
Click to expand...

We were linked to him though I seem to remember. But back then he was a bit of an idiot wasn't he? No one was sure which way he was going to go. Zaha looked the brighter star potentially.

Not sure why people are jumping on my comment when I was basically just trying to clarify what another poster meant :lol: I'm bloody bored of the "Fergie would have" done anything quip as much as everyone else!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.