Home&Away
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2017
- Messages
- 1,100
I like lingard but playing him out wide makes him look even worse than he is. Same with martial & Rashford.
Someone else can put in a solid-but-not-spectacular 6/10 performance for 4 consecutive matches and no one says anything. Lingard does it and he's not United quality and needs to be shipped out immediately because he's not skinning defenders, scoring screamers, or creating five chances a game.
I think you are being very generous to say Lingard regularly has runs of games where he puts in 6 out of 10 performances, 6/10 is above average and he didn't do that last season certainly not in the 2nd half of the season anyway. He tended to have a good game and then 4-5 anonymous ones.
To play as a winger for Man Utd to have your performances rated as above average then if you are not scoring goals you have to be regularly creating them. Lingard unfortunately does not. Now i'm not saying he has to score or assist every game to play well but if you are regularly going 5-6-7 games in a row without even scoring or assisting once as Lingard does then you are not contributing enough.
Mate, his performances from the Chelsea game to the end of the season literally averaged 6/10 from Sky, and that's the period he was apparently shite for. His whoscored rating for the entirety of last season is 6.7/10, and was over 7 for the season before.
Lingard is the very definition of a solid 6/10 player. If he was scoring and assisting regularly he'd be a 7 or 8/10 player. If he was winning matches on his own he'd be 8 or 9/10. He's not what you'd call error prone, but he's not really someone who'll make a difference either. As I've said now multiple times, he does a job, and he does it reasonably well more often than not.
Too many people expect squads to be built like it's Fifa or Football Manager. Players over 30 are ancient and past it. If you've hit 21 and haven't peaked then you're a wasted talent. If you do anything on a football pitch that can't be detailed in numbers then you mustn't have done anything. The only players a team should have are world class, otherwise they're shit.
Lingard is the very definition of a solid 6/10 player. If he was scoring and assisting regularly he'd be a 7 or 8/10 player. If he was winning matches on his own he'd be 8 or 9/10. He's not what you'd call error prone, but he's not really someone who'll make a difference either. As I've said now multiple times, he does a job, and he does it reasonably well more often than not.
Too many people expect squads to be built like it's Fifa or Football Manager. Players over 30 are ancient and past it. If you've hit 21 and haven't peaked then you're a wasted talent. If you do anything on a football pitch that can't be detailed in numbers then you mustn't have done anything. The only players a team should have are world class, otherwise they're shit.
Imho Fletchers first 50 games were far worse than Lingards. Apparently Fletcher did come good (although this is something I've never agreed with).Genuine question here, not flaming just curious to see the responses...
Is Lingard the worst player to make 50 starts for United?
Mate, his performances from the Chelsea game to the end of the season literally averaged 6/10 from Sky, and that's the period he was apparently shite for. His whoscored rating for the entirety of last season is 6.7/10, and was over 7 for the season before.
Lingard is the very definition of a solid 6/10 player. If he was scoring and assisting regularly he'd be a 7 or 8/10 player. If he was winning matches on his own he'd be 8 or 9/10. He's not what you'd call error prone, but he's not really someone who'll make a difference either. As I've said now multiple times, he does a job, and he does it reasonably well more often than not.
Too many people expect squads to be built like it's Fifa or Football Manager. Players over 30 are ancient and past it. If you've hit 21 and haven't peaked then you're a wasted talent. If you do anything on a football pitch that can't be detailed in numbers then you mustn't have done anything. The only players a team should have are world class, otherwise they're shit.
He shouldnt be there. Doesnt deserve to be there, I know its not his job to select the team, but fans are gonna respond to what they see. I think every one can see he is not good enough for the premiership let alone us. Hence he will get hate, specially if he keeps more talented players out of the team.He just posted on instagram:
Always forgive, but never forget, learn from mistakes, but never regret.
Looks like fans went really too hard on him, I think we should stand behind our players and treat them like they deserve to. After all he's training as much as he can and it's not his fault that we lost the game vs Real.
Will probably get stick for this, but I've hated the sight of this player ever since the video he took during the West Ham bus attack.
He hardly played that night (only came on with a few minutes to spare) so isn't at all responsible for the performance that night, but it's his actions on the bus that make me long for the good old days, and I'm only 31!
Wailing, laughing and generally making a twat of himself during a time like that it's of little surprise we've been such a horror show since Fergie left.
Full of weak and immature characters. Lingard, Shaw, Smalling, Depay to name a few.
The type of leaders we've had in the past, the likes of Stam, Neville, Keane, Giggs, Robson etc. A world away from the current crop of shite.
Mourinho is improving upon this with the likes of Bailly, Matic and Zlatan but Lingard, can't stand the kid.
No, of course not, don't be silly. He was selected because Real are the best team in the world and we were being very conservative; Lingard will be willing to track back much more than Martial or Rashford would. I don't necessarily agree with it, but the reason for his selection was pretty clearly to contain.So Mourinho thinks he is better than both Martial and Rashford?
Will probably get stick for this, but I've hated the sight of this player ever since the video he took during the West Ham bus attack.
He hardly played that night (only came on with a few minutes to spare) so isn't at all responsible for the performance that night, but it's his actions on the bus that make me long for the good old days, and I'm only 31!
Wailing, laughing and generally making a twat of himself during a time like that it's of little surprise we've been such a horror show since Fergie left.
Full of weak and immature characters. Lingard, Shaw, Smalling, Depay to name a few.
The type of leaders we've had in the past, the likes of Stam, Neville, Keane, Giggs, Robson etc. A world away from the current crop of shite.
Mourinho is improving upon this with the likes of Bailly, Matic and Zlatan but Lingard, can't stand the kid.
Genuine question here, not flaming just curious to see the responses...
Is Lingard the worst player to make 50 starts for United?
Yes, Fletch's first 50 were truly awful. To think Fergie used to mention him in the same breath as Ronaldo and Rooney: 'If he had pace, he would have been world class'.Imho Fletchers first 50 games were far worse than Lingards. Apparently Fletcher did come good (although this is something I've never agreed with).
No, he really wasn't. He was a nothing player, doing the simple stuff in midfield without ever standing out in anything or offering anything tangible. He was exactly like Lingard, in a different position. That he started quite often in a team that ran away with the title was a testament to Sir Alex's ability to build a diamond palace out of wombat shite.Cleverley was a whole level below Lingard, destructive in his awfulness. He played more sideways passes than Garry Neville and more backwards passes than Paul Parker.
Cleverley was a whole level below Lingard, destructive in his awfulness. He played more sideways passes than Garry Neville and more backwards passes than Paul Parker.
Nope they are par for meCleverley was a whole level below Lingard, destructive in his awfulness. He played more sideways passes than Garry Neville and more backwards passes than Paul Parker.
Mate, his performances from the Chelsea game to the end of the season literally averaged 6/10 from Sky, and that's the period he was apparently shite for. His whoscored rating for the entirety of last season is 6.7/10, and was over 7 for the season before.
Lingard is the very definition of a solid 6/10 player. If he was scoring and assisting regularly he'd be a 7 or 8/10 player. If he was winning matches on his own he'd be 8 or 9/10. He's not what you'd call error prone, but he's not really someone who'll make a difference either. As I've said now multiple times, he does a job, and he does it reasonably well more often than not.
Too many people expect squads to be built like it's Fifa or Football Manager. Players over 30 are ancient and past it. If you've hit 21 and haven't peaked then you're a wasted talent. If you do anything on a football pitch that can't be detailed in numbers then you mustn't have done anything. The only players a team should have are world class, otherwise they're shit.
I like him in our squad, but I think today showed why he should start more on the bench than in the starting line up.
Its fine to have a career being a squady too. I think that fits his ability.
Imho Fletchers first 50 games were far worse than Lingards. Apparently Fletcher did come good (although this is something I've never agreed with).
Fletcher was very good for us for a while after that in central midfield. Just didn't really fit with Carrick all that well, at least in our setup or with the players we had around them. But definitely a better player than Lingard. Fletcher had just turned 25 (so like 8 months younger than Lingard) when he was suspended for the CL final and we badly missed him and Mourinho said:
"Fletcher is more important than people think. His work in midfield, especially in the midfield 'wars', in crucial matches is very important. Man United will miss his pace and aggression in defensive actions: he 'eats' opponents in defensive transition. I believe Xavi and Andrés Iniesta are happy Fletch is not playing."
I do not expect to hear, from anyone, about how happy David Alaba or Marcelo are if Lingard gets suspended before we play Bayern or Madrid.
Sorry dude, but were so much better when he doesnt start.
The biggest reason is hes not clinical enough and probably our weakest attacker. I do think he would be better as a sub anyway.
IMO, unless we get injuries, he shouldnt start a league game again (unless of course its also a 3 game a week situation). But saying that, I have no problem with him being a squad player. Theres nothing wrong with that.