It’s an awful argument even when we look past Guardiola’s atrocious record of failed defensive signings. City decided to pass up on him because they’ve evaluated that he isn’t good enough for them to spend a huge amount of money on… and this is supposed to make him look good? It’s like using Wan-Bossaka’s past as a winger to argue for his technical prowess — how does failing to establish himself as an attacker in youth football a positive?
5
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 37
- Clean sheets
- 7
- Goals
- 2
- Assists
- 0
- Yellow cards
- 9
- Red cards
- 1
- Status
You missed my point completely.
Stones was not the player he is now when he signed. It took a while for Guardiola to coach the mistakes out of him. Same with Walker.
My point was that if Maguire had gone to City and spent the last few years under a top coach he'd be a lot better.
John Stones wouldn't be half the player he is now had he spent the last 3 years with Ole and the gang.
Agree with this.
Bruno, Wan bissaka, Maguire have deteriorated.
Players like Rashford and Greenwood haven't progressed a whole level etc.
Well, you’ve literally said that Guardiola wanted him, so he can’t be as bad as he’s made out to be.
Alright, if that wasn’t your point, what was? Literally every player ever would be better off playing for a better manager.
Who are all these failed defensive signings that Guardiola has made?
Mendy, Danilo, Aké (so far), Chygrynsky, Benatia, Caséres..
Well, Guardiola's interest at least implies some talent and ability on the ball and with the right coaching could become a top defender.
Some players that have already received world class coaching don't then need it again because they have the tactical intelligence and know-how and their performances are driven by the system and players around them.
Do you think De Bruyne or Bruno Dias for example need to be coached on which passes to make?
Conversely the majority of our team have absolutely no clue who to pass it to when and where to be which is why we've had so many disastrous mistakes trying to play out from the back.
Mendy - OK, poor player and now in prison is an unmitigated disaster.
Danilo - I don't agree, he wasn't a major signing
Ake - Not a major signing, bought as back up which is a role that he's fulfilling
The other three may have been bad but I didn't follow their careers so I can't comment with confidence. I don't think this is evidence of Guardiola being a terrible judge of defensive players, far from it in fact. Dias, Laporte, Walker, Cancelo and Stones have all made the Premier League team of the season at some point under him and been part of the best defences in the league. Rangrick says you need a hit rate of 50% in the transfer market to be successful. At City, at least, it's pretty clear that Guardiola has actually been above that with his defensive signings. The only player signed for the XI that has failed is Mendy.
Last edited:
Stones cant get a game this season and Walker still has mistakes in him, its the possession football that City play that make their defenders look better than they are.
This is nonsense really - we conceded one goal because Chelsea were profligate, wasting loads of chances, not because of any masterful defending.
Your opinion on Maguire in general is based on this season only really. He's played against plenty of premier league attackers as a mainstay of our defence for the previous 2 seasons in which we had the 4th and 3rd fewest goals against in the league, along with his time at Leicester, and at the Euros with England as a mainstay of a defence that conceded 0 goals from open play (1 direct free kick, 1 corner). He's obviously a top defender, but one that's having a poor season, partly because he's been heavily overplayed for the last few seasons.
Sure, I suppose we'll ignore the amount of cock ups he had last season, largely a part of why we kept falling behind in several games, and the absolute disaster strike he has been this season.
The fact is it seems nobody wants to admit that Maguire was a below average defender at Leicester, an occasionally stable defender here, and I have no idea why.
Could be the usual English bias. Especially considering most people were mocking our interest in Dias because apparently he was "too bad and just mid table" but Maguire was one of the apparent "top 4 defenders in the league". No, he really fecking wasn't.
He's been an awful captain by the standards of Manchester United and an awful player for us, who gets praised because he does the bare minimum, at a club who is supposed to demand the very best.
I have never seen a defender at this club be responsible for as many goal conceding mistakes as he has been game after game after game and yet still remain in the side and somehow people still defend him.
That moment when he pulled down Shaw against Spurs last season will forever haunt me.
The club needs to accept he's been a flop and move on.
My opinion was based on the fact that I didn't think he was good when he was at Leicester, and I was baffled when he was signed by us, and I have not seen anything to state he offers enough for a team that wants to win the league and CL.
Your opinion is based on the fact that you had an opinion? I think you may need to look up what a "fact" actually is.
This season aside, Maguire has been easily our best CB. That's not saying he's the best in the world or anything, but Bailly is a walking mistake, Lindelof is far too easily bullied, and the less said about Jones the better. Varane will be much better if he can stay fit, but he's been made of glass so far.
Aké was signed for 45 millions, Danilo for 30 millions, Benatia for 28 millions in 2014, Chygrynsky for 25 millions in 2009, which made him 8th most expensive defender ever at the time. Caséres was 16 millions in 2008, again, a huge sum at the time. Mendy is another 57,5 mil on top of that. Not a single player had made a significant contribution to his team — and you can argue their insignificance all you want but that amounts to 200 million euros... with zero output.
If you argue that it's enough to judge Guardiola's initial interest (that wasn't followed through by the way, again, he didn't even fight for Maguire) as a sign of a player's quality then...
A bit an overstatement. Chelsea had gobs of chances, but how many of them were glorious chances one would say they really should have scored on? Not the Rudiger chance at the death, which would have been a worldie, especially for a defender, but you wouldn't expect him to score on that chance. Not the Timo chance, which would have been top shelf stuff had he converted. The Rudiger chance early in the game from long distance was a fantastic shot, but it was from long distance and Dave had it covered.
No, we did not display "masterful defending" yesterday, but we defended very well. De Gea had to make some saves, but none of his saves would be anywhere near his top 50 saves of all time highlight reel.
A bit of credit to our defending yesterday is in order.
De Bruyne — yes, of course. Probably not the passing technique but Pep certainly coaches him where to move and how to behave in certain situations even though pre-Pep he was already a world-class player. You can see how he had changed his game under Pep, reaching even higher levels and expanding his influence over the game.
I assume that by Bruno Dias you mean Ruben Dias? Then yes, his passing game has improved significantly under Pep's guidance.
This is one of the notions I have not understood.
He must be good because City wanted him, applies to Fred as well.
I don't care how good a manager is, they all make mistakes in the transfer market, SAF did too. Sometimes, you watch a player and they just suit the teams formation and tactics.
On the point that he's a poor judge of defender I think the evidence simply isn't there to support your point. I'm specifically talking about his tenure at City because I don't know enough about his career at his other clubs. Back up players being back up players doesn't qualify as failing no matter how you slice and dice it, regardless of what they cost. Players flop for all managers, hence why Rangnick cites a 50% hit rate in the market as being successful. At City Guardiola has done considerably better than that.
That one of the best sides in the world wanted to pay £65m for Maguire obviously does show that he's more highly rated than some of the detractors on here would have you believe. It doesn't mean that if he went to City that he'd be a guaranteed success of course.
I'd personally start Lindelof over him, whilst Lindelof will undoubtedly cause a goal weakly dealing with a long ball his overall play is better. He's a decent passer and i can see us utilising his range well.
Well, if you keep coming back to it, I just want to highlight that you're putting words into my mouth. I've said that he has an atrocious record of failed defensive signings that, up to this point, has amounted to more than 200 mil Euros wasted into nothing (and I've only counted his most high-profile mistakes). He's had some wonderful defensive transfers over the years, the most notable of them all would be Pique for 5 mil who he had signed & immediately turned him into one of the world's best. But then I never said that he didn't — his successes don't negate his atrocious record of failed signings. What makes the original argument (about Maguire being good because City considered signing him) even less convincing since... well, they haven't signed him, making a conscious decision of backing out of the deal because he wasn't worth it.
My only complaint about Maguire is that he is a streaky player who's confidence ebbs and flows too much. He's obviously struggling this year, but I've seen enough of him to know his quality and that he will bounce back and be a positive for this club.
Sorry but it's a ridiculous semantic argument. You can apply this to literally every manager for every position in the pitch because transfers fail a lot for everyone. I had a look at all his defensive signings at all clubs he hits the 50%+ threshold for success as outlined by Rangrick, that's even if you include your backup players not being important players for City as well. I don't think he's signed a domestic based defensive player that has failed either.
I been wondering what happened to Ake.
The guy doesn't even get a game for City does he?
Your selective list left out their best chance, which was when Hudson-Odio waltzed through AWB and Lindelof early on. Plus the Rudiger one at the end he had plenty of time to bring it down, why he went for the volley only he knows. We didn't defend very well - we were far more defensive as a team than we have been for most of this season, and yet we had the second-most xG conceded of any team this weekend. Chelsea had an xG of 2.81, which was only beaten by Arsenal against Newcastle this weekend, according to xGPhilosophy on Twitter.
Yes, I will concede that Chelsea had one glorious chance on goal for the game when Husdon-Odoi got through early on, De Gea has to earn credit for the brilliant foot save. But for the save, the ball was going in, not wide right.
As Rudiger, he didn't have time for a second touch. Had that same ball fallen for prime Ronaldo you could say the ball should have resulted in a goal, but Rudiger is no prime Ronaldo in the opposition box. It would be unreasonable to suggest that Rudiger should have scored from there.
Going into the game, no one would have expected us to keep Chelsea down to one glorious chance. In fact, I can't think of any side on the planet who you'd say would be expected to keep a clean sheet in open play against this very good Chelsea side. But that's exactly what we did. Chelsea had lots of half-chances -- the two Rudiger chances, the Werner chance -- but only one chance where you'd say Chelsea should have scored. But it's not as though Hudson-Odoi fluffed the chance. De Gea made an outstanding save, and an outstanding save is as important or as much a part of defending, as majestic CB or FB play.
Rangnick’s 50% is a way more semantic argument than mine is, you take a quite specific argument and completely ignore any context. I’m not saying that Pep is incapable of spotting defensive talent, I’m a huge fan of his and I consider him to be by far the greatest modern manager and arguably the greatest ever. My argument has nothing to do with downplaying his ability of spotting potential talent (that you somehow got overly defensive with), it’s a very simple logical argument that states that being spotted by Pep doesn’t equal to you being good. Even when he spots a player and decides to buy him the success is far from being guaranteed — so how is Pep refusing to sign a player is used as an argument for that player being inherently good?
Also, the domestic based defensive player that has failed argument
And you accuse me of being overly semantic.Of course every player that Pep has signed is inherently good and a player that he wants to spend £65m on is obviously inherently good. I think that perhaps you mean isn’t absolute top level or world class or guaranteed to work out in that team situation at that time? The idea that they’d scout actual bad football players and drop £65m on them is inherently stupid.
Well, Maguire isn't a bad player, he's a decent PL level footballer whose glaring weaknesses deny him from reaching truly top level. He's probably our second best centre back (not in this form). But the argument "he wants to spend X amount on him, so he must be good" is simply a stupid argument. He didn't — he evaluated the player and decided that paying this much for him is too much. If you're not talking about, say, Hull City, the argument that City considered this player but passed on him in order to sign a better one shouldn't work. Yet it gets brought up time after time.
Again, the facts are:
- there are reports of City looking into Maguire's potential transfer
- City refuse to take part in a bidding war for him
- United sign him for ridiculous money
At which point City's actions can be used as an argument that proves Maguire's quality?
The Athletic in their long article about the transfer said that City bid £70m after failing to include Otamendi or Mangala in the deal for him. That bid was rejected and that was their limit. Guardiola confirmed in his press conference that they were in for him but couldn’t afford it.
It doesn’t prove his quality in and of itself but nor is it an irrelevance in any discussion about his level. That one of the greatest managers in the game and well run transfer committee were happy to invest that much says something about his level at least.
.
Again, what does it really prove? Even if you believe the inside sources. Pep wanted to bit some amount for him, it wasn't enough and they didn't consider him to be good enough to go further. Pep had been wrong many times before, be it defensive or other signings. In this one he didn't even follow through. Does it prove that he was playing on a decent enough level that City, an English club faced with certain domestic restrictions, considered signing him? Yeah. He was playing at a good level at Leicester, but nothing exceptional. When he came to United his weaknesses were exposed in a way that they never were at Leicester and he had proved that he has it in him to play good on some days (being our best — now second best — central defender) but still being capable of producing a catastrophic performance out of the blue.
Januzaj apparently had a 50 million bid coming in for him from PSG that we refused. Should we use it as an argument while discussing his carer so far?
it seems our captain will finally have some movement infront of him. we will see even more his great passing
We gave away the second highest expected goals of anyone this weekend, so you can downplay their great chances all you like, they were still great chances. We defended OK at best.
Ake was injured most of last season. He made some decisive mistakes at the start of this season then was benched indefinitely.
Shame. I think he would be a good player for a midtable team like Manchester United.
High xG does not guarantee “great chances”. A bunch of shit chances (e.g. blocked shots from a long way out) can give you the exact same xG as two very good ones. That’s (one of) the reasons why people read far too much into xG.
At the point where a very good manager working at a club with an excellent record in the transfer market decided that signing Maguire could improve a very good team. If they eventually decided that the very high transfer fee needed to sign him could be better invested in other areas of the squad that’s got feck all to do with the quality they saw in him when he first caught their eye.
A fresh start for him. Wish him well. Has a lot of work to do.
He also identified Sanchez as someone that would improve them & whilst I’m sure he’d have faired better there than at United it’s a remedial argument to say, ‘Pep rated him so blah’. Pep wanted him some 3 years ago. Also Pep, in spite of having a decent record with transfers has had his fair share of bad signings there.
What Pep saw 3 years ago is irrelevant, I’ve never known a captain need so much protection.
No, apart from the Hudson-Odoi chance they weren’t “great chances”. The Rudiger and Werner chances were well inside the box but the chances were quite difficult.
The pk was, however, well taken.
The Fred scoring chance, which he completely fluffed, was much more a glorious chance completely wasted than either Rudiger II (Rudiger I was a pot shot from long distance and although he struck it perfectly, De Gea had it covered) or Werner. But we can’t count that as a legitimate scoring chance as it was Fred who had the ball, and the words Fred and scoring chance should rarely be used in the same sentence. Ronaldo was disgusted with Fred did with that ball, which looked more like a back pass than shot on goal. Ronaldo was in acres of open space, had Fred had the presence of mind to find him.
What do you mean believe the inside sources? Pep said in a press conference after we signed him that they tried to sign him. The details came from Sam Lee who is the best connected City journalist there is and written in the most credible media source. Like I said, it doesn't prove that he would make it at the highest level but it does prove that he was very highly rated in the game by what can only be described as experts. Guardiola wasn't the only manager that wanted him either. Mourinho wanted to sign him for United as well.
Januzaj was a really talented and highly rated youngster so signing him would've been much more of a gamble for PSG. Maguire was in his mid 20s so there were hundreds of games to scout. You can use the alleged £50m as evidence of how talented Januzaj is as a player certainly. He failed in relative terms for other reasons.
All that said, I am less confident that Maguire will be a long term success here than I used to be. He has in my opinion shown some psychological frailties that do not bode well. I think he should lose the captaincy as he is very poor representing the club to the media. I do hope that he can return to form under a better coach, however.
If you keep conceding lots of low xG chances then it becomes more and more likely that you will concede a goal. Chelsea's xG was more inflated by the penalty though.
It was a terrible performance from us. I don't think we've ever set up as cowardly as that, at least not in my memory. It doesn't prove anything in terms of defender performances because we had 11 behind the ball with 3 CDMs. We had 3 shots in the game which is utterly pathetic. Our goal came from a major defensive error and the only other real opening from a bad back pass from the goal keeper. It was nice to get a point but lets hope we're now going to move away from playing like that forever.
I don't quite know why you're going on about Fred, he did make a mess of his chance at the end, no argument.
As for our defending, we're simply gonna have to agree to disagree, as this is going around in circles. For me, the stats are pretty clear, only one defence (Newcastle's) conceded more expected goals than us.
- Status