Zoo
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2010
- Messages
- 30,331
He gave us good energy when coming on and helped the midfielders more then Mkhitaryan.
When he came on for Mkhi he instantly dropped down in midfield and stopped the Spurs midfield dominance that had been happening with Mkhi on the pitch. The whole dynamic changed due to that.
His talent is mediocre, but atleast he tries, unlike Mkhi who doesn't contribute at all defensively.
As usual arse collapsed when finding himself in a good position. The goals versus Swansea were unfortunately unusual in how well he took them. Would love him to succeed but he’s not shown anything to suggest he would.
It's nothing to do with luck.Nice cameo from him unlucky not to score.
That wasn't lack of luck but rather lack of skill to finish.Nice cameo from him unlucky not to score.
Much maligned but a useful player. When on form he can actually be very good,
Regards yesterday's miss though he simply has to run across eriksen, can't be touched then, was a poor moment from him but I do feel he offers a bit of energy and gets "between the lines" quite well
The spurs player did enough to throw him off.It's nothing to do with luck.
Sorry I don't think he's maligned at all. I think most people accurately assess him to be fairly average but, like you, think that maybe he can be useful to have around sometimes. Others, bizarrely, take umbrage to that and then overcompensate by calling bang-average performances 'fantastic', accusing other people who disagree 'haters' or other such nonsense.
He's the only player I can name where not massively overrating him is routinely defined as 'maligning' him.
Hmm, I feel even reading the first page of this thread shows that while mixed opinions out there, many posts fit the definition of a maligned player. And that's one page. "Garbage", "sell" "rubbish" I think justify my choice of words perfectly
More nippy than pacey I guess a bit like with J.S. Park.
Has he lost pace or was it the pitch? Did well after coming on. Much better than the sloppy Mkhitaryan.
He is pals with our golden boy Rashford and Pogba. He also offers “good movement”.Why do we have him in our team? as in what role does he actually fulfill? i prefer squad players who add something but I'm not quite sure what he adds.
He had something like 14 passes, I'm not sure he attempted anything creative or something you would expect from a Manchester United number 10. Based on what would you pick Lingard ahead of Mkhitaryan?I thought he played the simple passes well which michy hasn't been doing for weeks now so that's a plus. Lacks real quality and I'll prefer him on the right but between he and Michy ATM I'd pick lingard for the no 10 spot
In the second half I can count a couple of times when darmian or someone will be free down the flanks and time and again either mata or michy chose to ignore them and play the difficult pass to a player under pressure which led to us losing the ball
That's been the most frustrating part of our play in recent weeks and lingard did pick out some of us those passes in the first half so fair play to him
He had something like 14 passes, I'm not sure he attempted anything creative or something you would expect from a Manchester United number 10. Based on what would you pick Lingard ahead of Mkhitaryan?
Or we could try a line-up that includes neither of them.Based on him completing the easy passes to keep our attack flowing. Michy hasn't been making any creative passes for a while now and in addition to that he has forgotten how to complete even 5 yard passes
Michy on form and in general I'd choose over lingard any day any time but this version of michy we've been stuck with the past few weeks now despite enough chances to rectify his form?
I'd choose lingard 'cause I know I won't get anything creative from him but at least he won't stop our attacks with his uncanny ability to find the opposition basically every single time
Or we could try a line-up that includes neither of them.