He was a little quiet because we struggled in the final third. Chelsea were set up solidly at the back, as you'd expect. Mata struggled to break them down and find space just like the rest of our forward players did.
8
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 35
- Goals
- 10
- Assists
- 4
- Yellow cards
- 2
- Status
It was quite frustrating when Januzaj came on for him. Mata wasn't at his best but he showed strength and maintained possession even under pressure. Adnan seemed to lose the ball with every moment.
I understand Juan better than most, nothing happened today that I didnt know about. Get back to me when he wins us another game ditractors.
So stupid to take him off.
Did look half the player he has been recently without the tidy interplay with Herrera, Rooney just can't do that.
Was decent, but Van Gaal probably wanted more pace so took him off for Januzaj as they closed him down well. Didn't really work out though.
Thing is, Mata is the player we probably need to be able to break down organised defences like that.
Not his day, that's life.
He was completely isolated on the right-hand side without Herrera to play off. Rooney was more interested in staying perfectly central and, if anything, drifting a bit left so he could ping it to Valencia. Which left Mata with no one to play-off on the inside, and could only really check back to Valencia... our right-hand side has only worked so well because there's been 3 of them to make the runs and the space.
@prarek
This is what I was talking about when I called him a luxury player last week.
I agree that there were mitigating circumstances (as identified by @Annihilate Now! and others) - that basically without Herrera next to him, his impact dropped dramatically - but that is pretty much my point. Mata is a player who needs the rest of the team set up a certain way and playing well in order to have an impact. Yesterday we didnt have the team set up perfectly, and Mata struggled - more than most I would say.
I feel that a player of the mould of Mata needs to be able to create a bit more in the final third and needs to be able to impact games when things arent all going according to plan. Silva is the perfect example of what I want from that sort of player - one of those who has that "moment of magic" quality in his game. Hazard is another example - just look at yesterday. Yes, Hazard has some different qualities to Mata, but the role in the team is pretty similar for both - the attacking, creative player who has license to roam when required.
This is what I was talking about when I called him a luxury player last week.
I agree that there were mitigating circumstances (as identified by @Annihilate Now! and others) - that basically without Herrera next to him, his impact dropped dramatically - but that is pretty much my point. Mata is a player who needs the rest of the team set up a certain way and playing well in order to have an impact. Yesterday we didnt have the team set up perfectly, and Mata struggled - more than most I would say.
I feel that a player of the mould of Mata needs to be able to create a bit more in the final third and needs to be able to impact games when things arent all going according to plan. Silva is the perfect example of what I want from that sort of player - one of those who has that "moment of magic" quality in his game. Hazard is another example - just look at yesterday. Yes, Hazard has some different qualities to Mata, but the role in the team is pretty similar for both - the attacking, creative player who has license to roam when required.
He missed his buddy Herrera
Not a great game for him. With the way Chelsea set up it was difficult for him.
I understand what you are saying but my point stands. By this definition 90 percent of footballers are all luxury players. You can put Hazard and Silva in the other 10 percent. At the end of the day Mata has more often than not performed in the big games this season. 4 goals and 1 assist i believe. Even Messi would struggle to create something against such an expensive parked bus. Actually im certain even Hazard would have struggled. Mata can be forgiven, he wasn't effective but he wasn't woeful either. There aren't many teams of Chelsea's quality that can park the bus like that.
Context is important. True. He's playing well for us and I'm happy for that. I was just wondering how he compares with his old self. Would be interesting to see.
Thought bringing on AJ for Mata was a huge mistake. AJ hasn't had much match time in ages, whereas Mata has been in form, and players can often do something against their old clubs.
Azpilicueta shut him down properly, he definitely needs Ander closer to him to be effective in this role.
I thought he was a little too static compared to his performance against City.
He definitely needs good movement and clever passing around him to make that 'false winger' role work. When it does work though, as it has over the last few weeks, its fantastic.
^This... I completely agree with.
@Walrus picking Mata out of our team against Chelsea and casting stones seems petty.
I mean the whole attacking quintet struggled. Did Young play well? Fellaini? Rooney? Falcao? ADM when he came on? How about Januzaj? We struggled against an very organized and determined Chelsea who will most likely win the EPL.
Based on your definition of luxury player who on United is not a luxury player?
He should've moved around more as he was never going to get joy out of azpilicueta outwide. As an attacker, he's really an average dribbler. He doesn't possess a direct threat and once you mix that in with him being defended by the best 1 on 1 defender in the league then you're going to have an ineffective player.
@prarek tagging you since this is also somewhat in response to your post.
You and I clearly have very different definitions of a luxury player, or you have simply misunderstood mine.
A player playing badly =/= a luxury player.
Lets take a quick trip through history and look at how formations have changed and evolved over the years. Without spending pages and pages on it, the basic trend is that as time has gone on, teams have tended to field fewer and fewer strikers, in favour of more midfielders who can impact all phases of play.
We have even seen the likes of Barca and Spain using systems with no striker at all, with varying degrees of success.
The reason in my eyes is pretty simple - an out and out striker is someone who generally the team must carry for most of the game. He isnt expected to defend a lot (although the recent trend of high pressing is something the striker can participate in), and often can simply act as a poacher. Of course there are other types of striker who get more involved (like Rooney), and typically those players tend to be the more successful ones at the moment - Suarez, Rooney, Messi etc. It is often said that the time of the #9 is going/gone.
So teams stack the midfield, to have more players who can contribute in all phases of play. Again, a lot of the most successful attacking midfielders in the PL of recent years have been the ones who still work hard and put a shift in, whilst also offering a lot going forwards.
Now back to luxury players - a luxury player is someone who typically does not contribute much except for in the final third or attacking situations. They - as with a striker - need to be carried by the team to an extent, in the hope that they can provide something. If the team is playing poorly they will often be anonymous, but when the team is playing well they can be the icing on the cake.
Rooney is not a luxury player, nor is Young, nor is Fellaini - these are all players who will put a shift in, and whilst they can still have bad games, will inevitably contribute in some way shape or form. The likes of Mata however, can very easily play 90 minutes without contributing anything of note, because he is quite a limited player in respect to what he actually brings to the team;
Young - Good pace, good defensive contribution, decent crossing, can also cut inside and shoot.
Fellaini - Chest control and general strength/holdup play making him a great outball for defenders. Also a guaranteed threat on set pieces/corners, and valuable in defending the same.
Rooney - Definition is a bit stretched here as Rooney is a striker not a midfielder, but he is a very versatile, complete player.
As for Mata - he isnt fast, he isnt particularly strong, he doesnt have the sort of workrate of a Rooney or Hazard and offers little defensively. In short, all he brings to the table are his technical attacking qualities - linking up, playing through balls and being a good finisher. Its a very limited skillset somewhat like Valencia, in that he is very good at what he does, but "what he does" is limited to a few things.
I imagine this comes across as me calling Mata crap, which I am not, and I dont think of him. In the exchange I had with @prarek last week after the City game I summed up my thoughts on Mata and his contributions. He is a good player and it is made more prominent by the fact that he seems such a likeable, nice bloke, however I dont think he will ever reach the sort of levels that the top PL players of recent years like Hazard, Silva or Suarez, until he is able to either expand his skillset or start impacting games consistently and "taking them by the scruff of their neck" to use the cliché.
You and I clearly have very different definitions of a luxury player, or you have simply misunderstood mine.
A player playing badly =/= a luxury player.
Lets take a quick trip through history and look at how formations have changed and evolved over the years. Without spending pages and pages on it, the basic trend is that as time has gone on, teams have tended to field fewer and fewer strikers, in favour of more midfielders who can impact all phases of play.
We have even seen the likes of Barca and Spain using systems with no striker at all, with varying degrees of success.
The reason in my eyes is pretty simple - an out and out striker is someone who generally the team must carry for most of the game. He isnt expected to defend a lot (although the recent trend of high pressing is something the striker can participate in), and often can simply act as a poacher. Of course there are other types of striker who get more involved (like Rooney), and typically those players tend to be the more successful ones at the moment - Suarez, Rooney, Messi etc. It is often said that the time of the #9 is going/gone.
So teams stack the midfield, to have more players who can contribute in all phases of play. Again, a lot of the most successful attacking midfielders in the PL of recent years have been the ones who still work hard and put a shift in, whilst also offering a lot going forwards.
Now back to luxury players - a luxury player is someone who typically does not contribute much except for in the final third or attacking situations. They - as with a striker - need to be carried by the team to an extent, in the hope that they can provide something. If the team is playing poorly they will often be anonymous, but when the team is playing well they can be the icing on the cake.
Rooney is not a luxury player, nor is Young, nor is Fellaini - these are all players who will put a shift in, and whilst they can still have bad games, will inevitably contribute in some way shape or form. The likes of Mata however, can very easily play 90 minutes without contributing anything of note, because he is quite a limited player in respect to what he actually brings to the team;
Young - Good pace, good defensive contribution, decent crossing, can also cut inside and shoot.
Fellaini - Chest control and general strength/holdup play making him a great outball for defenders. Also a guaranteed threat on set pieces/corners, and valuable in defending the same.
Rooney - Definition is a bit stretched here as Rooney is a striker not a midfielder, but he is a very versatile, complete player.
As for Mata - he isnt fast, he isnt particularly strong, he doesnt have the sort of workrate of a Rooney or Hazard and offers little defensively. In short, all he brings to the table are his technical attacking qualities - linking up, playing through balls and being a good finisher. Its a very limited skillset somewhat like Valencia, in that he is very good at what he does, but "what he does" is limited to a few things.
I imagine this comes across as me calling Mata crap, which I am not, and I dont think of him. In the exchange I had with @prarek last week after the City game I summed up my thoughts on Mata and his contributions. He is a good player and it is made more prominent by the fact that he seems such a likeable, nice bloke, however I dont think he will ever reach the sort of levels that the top PL players of recent years like Hazard, Silva or Suarez, until he is able to either expand his skillset or start impacting games consistently and "taking them by the scruff of their neck" to use the cliché.
I could understand the argument that Hazard's so much more influential in attack that he's allowed to do less defensively, but to think that Hazard's work rate is better than Mata's is incredible IMO. The only way that is true is he sprints more in possession and given how rare that is in a game in the grand scheme of things, I can't see how anyone could come to that conclusion beyond some inexplicable agenda. It almost seems like people are just towing the Mourinho line here and see what they want to see.
Last edited:
@Walrus I think we agreed on most points. I would like to point out a few things however. Firstly something we touched upon earlier. Mata may not be a good defender but he can play the pressing game very well which is a fact. He was top three in the league terms of winning possession in the final third in his last full season for Chelsea. A perfect example of this is Chelsea's game vs Spurs where Mata robs Walker from behind high up the pitch and feeds an assist for Sturridge. Its on youtube as well. I think the modern attacker spends more time in pressing than tackling as part of his defensive game as they are mostly up the pitch against defenders who rarely try to dribble past them, rather they pass the ball forward or sideways. Pressing, in a way, can be described as defending from the front, or atleast is a big part of it.
Secondly, he rarely loses the the ball, even in tight spaces and inside our own box too. There are other offensive players like Fellaini, Di Maria and Rooney who lose the ball more often. His passing is also the best in the team. Which is especially impressive considering the higher you play the harder it is to maintain a good passing accuracy which is why most defenders have a very good pass completion rate as they aren't as much under pressure. I feel these two things - pressing and ability to maintain possession in tight spaces goes some way in making up for his defensive contribution, or the lack of, which in itself might be a little overplayed as i don't think he's any worse than most playmakers out there. The article posted a few pages ago shows this to be true, that his defensive contribution really isn't as bad as its been made out to be.
Also one more thing that gets overlooked. He is very clinical in the box. He has 8 goals in 26 shots. That conversion rate is better than world class strikers like Aguero and Suarez. Better than Messi and Ronaldo. Think of any top european striker and no one has that good a conversion rate. Only Costa comes close. Simply put you create enough chances and he will score. I think thats a great 'attribute' to have.
Personally i've always felt that a luxury player is someone you could do without. That they can put up good numbers and look good in the process but really they don't make much of a difference on the overall performance of the team. They're just that.. a luxury. Id love to own an armani suit but really its a luxury i could do without. Id be fine with my two piece. Mata is not a luxury, he has been an integral part of our team's revival. He has also scored some vital winners, Liverpool, Stoke, Crystal Palace i can think of. He's performed against City. Seems harsh to label him luxury. I do admit he's got weaknesses - not the greatest defensively, not the strongest, cannot dribble, doesn't have great pace. Anyway this will be my last post on the luxury subject for a while as i've run out of things to say lol.
Secondly, he rarely loses the the ball, even in tight spaces and inside our own box too. There are other offensive players like Fellaini, Di Maria and Rooney who lose the ball more often. His passing is also the best in the team. Which is especially impressive considering the higher you play the harder it is to maintain a good passing accuracy which is why most defenders have a very good pass completion rate as they aren't as much under pressure. I feel these two things - pressing and ability to maintain possession in tight spaces goes some way in making up for his defensive contribution, or the lack of, which in itself might be a little overplayed as i don't think he's any worse than most playmakers out there. The article posted a few pages ago shows this to be true, that his defensive contribution really isn't as bad as its been made out to be.
Also one more thing that gets overlooked. He is very clinical in the box. He has 8 goals in 26 shots. That conversion rate is better than world class strikers like Aguero and Suarez. Better than Messi and Ronaldo. Think of any top european striker and no one has that good a conversion rate. Only Costa comes close. Simply put you create enough chances and he will score. I think thats a great 'attribute' to have.
Personally i've always felt that a luxury player is someone you could do without. That they can put up good numbers and look good in the process but really they don't make much of a difference on the overall performance of the team. They're just that.. a luxury. Id love to own an armani suit but really its a luxury i could do without. Id be fine with my two piece. Mata is not a luxury, he has been an integral part of our team's revival. He has also scored some vital winners, Liverpool, Stoke, Crystal Palace i can think of. He's performed against City. Seems harsh to label him luxury. I do admit he's got weaknesses - not the greatest defensively, not the strongest, cannot dribble, doesn't have great pace. Anyway this will be my last post on the luxury subject for a while as i've run out of things to say lol.
This is essentially "Someone elses opinion is different to mine so they must have some agenda, because no other opinion can possibly be valid."
@prarek you make some good points - I agree that Mata is excellent at retaining possession and is very clinical (which is something we lack at times).
I have also run out of things to say after that last wall of text. I do think that even using your definition, Mata is probably the most dispensable of our front four (Rooney, Mata, Rooney, Young) which sounds harsh, but consider that Mata is often one of those taken off (he has only completed 90 minutes four times this calendar year), so I would say he isnt that integral, although his attacking play is obviously very easy on the eye.
Without going too far off topic, I don't see how Young is more valuable then Mata. Think of the players that can perform to a higher level then Young (obviously he is in great form but we know it's a good patch and to be the best, we need to upgrade), we have Di Maria, potentially Januzaj and the likely scenario of a player like Depay. All upgrades on Young (as well as he is doing) if we are looking to be the best in Europe. I don't think anyone can offer what Mata does and I don't see us selling Mata to bring in a similar player to him.
I didnt say that Young is the better, or more gifted player - but that in the current system it can be argued that he is more indispensable than Mata. This is based partially on form (which has been good for both players of course), but moreso on the fact that Young's game is better rounded than Mata's. I believe that LVGs reluctance to put Mata in a central role is due to his percieved lack of workrate/defensive contribution, and similarly that if we had two Mata's, he would avoid fielding both of them on the flanks at the same time for the same reasons.
The current system, while could be used for the next 10 years, is really just looking at next week in my opinion. And we need to be looking a lot further ahead than that.
I understand your argument but I think it needs a broader outlook. Yes, we need to perform next week and at the moment, Young ticks that box but overall, we need to be looking at how to become the best and I see Mata involved and Young not involved when it comes to that.
I agree. Herrera and Mata have a wonderful partnership out wide and they seem to love playing together which really shows. Whenever Mata gets the ball out wide Herrera makes a run to link up with him and provide an option.
Not Rooney's fault of course, he's not a central midfielder and it was the first time he played the role of Herrera so to say.
Well not really, Mata has a very good work ethic and always puts a shift in, he just isn't very noticeable defensively because he's small so his work rate isn't as useful as it could be... He does press defenders well though. Certainly has been doing a lot more on the defensive side of things since about december compared to the start of the season.
I agree Mata is the better long term option, and if you told me that we could only keep one then I would choose Mata. However the original discussion was about Mata being a luxury player (or not), rather than who is the better long term squad option for us.
Tbh i dont think any of our attacking players were too bad or were the issue against chelsea.
We were just taking too long to move the ball forward and there was no real possession in the middle of the field.
They always had their back 4 on the edge of their box and matic and zouma shielding them, we never really got behind them.
Drogba and Oscar in particular did a good job making things awkward too. It was a great defensive performance by all to be fair to them.
I'd put a lot of our difficulty with breaking through them down to missing carrick in particular, mcnair was a bit hesitant too which didn't help.
Shaw played well but blind is good at keeping the ball moving at a good speed. Probably seems backward to most but our defence was the issue with our attacking play imo.
Too much of our play was pinned out on the wings with very little space.
If the ball moved from one wing to the other it was generally rooney pinging the ball from one wing to the other as opposed to it being worked across the field.
I'd say mcnair probably had more possession in the attacking third in front of their goal than any of our other players.
Not trying to be too critical - they had a zouma and matic in midfield, it was always going to be a bit of a struggle.
Mata's impressed me a lot this season though.
I've criticised him in the past for his (lack of) defensive contribution but hes been as good as can be expected this season.
He works hard, does a good job of covering the angles and hes smart and good at nicking the ball back when opposition players hesitate on the ball a bit long.
I'd struggle to think of a criticism this season outside of physical stuff that he cant really change like pace and being a big lump of a player who can bully people a bit.
He offers enough elsewhere that i dont particularly care though tbh. Im sure there'll be occasions when we want some more pace from our front 3 and he'll be dropped but hes a great option.
We were just taking too long to move the ball forward and there was no real possession in the middle of the field.
They always had their back 4 on the edge of their box and matic and zouma shielding them, we never really got behind them.
Drogba and Oscar in particular did a good job making things awkward too. It was a great defensive performance by all to be fair to them.
I'd put a lot of our difficulty with breaking through them down to missing carrick in particular, mcnair was a bit hesitant too which didn't help.
Shaw played well but blind is good at keeping the ball moving at a good speed. Probably seems backward to most but our defence was the issue with our attacking play imo.
Too much of our play was pinned out on the wings with very little space.
If the ball moved from one wing to the other it was generally rooney pinging the ball from one wing to the other as opposed to it being worked across the field.
I'd say mcnair probably had more possession in the attacking third in front of their goal than any of our other players.
Not trying to be too critical - they had a zouma and matic in midfield, it was always going to be a bit of a struggle.
Mata's impressed me a lot this season though.
I've criticised him in the past for his (lack of) defensive contribution but hes been as good as can be expected this season.
He works hard, does a good job of covering the angles and hes smart and good at nicking the ball back when opposition players hesitate on the ball a bit long.
I'd struggle to think of a criticism this season outside of physical stuff that he cant really change like pace and being a big lump of a player who can bully people a bit.
He offers enough elsewhere that i dont particularly care though tbh. Im sure there'll be occasions when we want some more pace from our front 3 and he'll be dropped but hes a great option.
Except your opinions do not match up with Mata's stats.
As for workrate against Liverpool Fellaini and Mata covered the most distance 11.6 KM, more than any other United player. Carrick covered 11.4 KM, and next is Rooney covering only 10.6 KM. He also had more touches than any other United player in this game. Seems like an all around performance to me.
Defensively...
http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/mar/23/juan-mata-manchester-united-louis-van-gaal
Most importantly we all agree Hazard is awesome, yet look at the stats (thru December) for the creative force for Chelsea vs Mata (and remember Hazard takes PKs)...
Now if all these stats do not convince you think about when we started to play our great football this year. We flamed out of the FA Cup to Arsenal and because of ADM's red card Mata got called into the starting line-up the next game... the start of our unbeaten streak until Chelsea.
I am sure all those great games and Mata being on the pitch scoring big goals against City and Pool are just coincidence
.
Last edited:
Everton 3:0 Man Utd
Without anyone to link with on the right he couldn't get into the game, he's not a player that has the attributes needed to play as isolated as he was today.
Took absolutely no responsibility today. Took the easy option every single fecking time. Not good enough Juan.
To be fair to Mata, he's working with right back with zero footballing intelligence or ability and that cant make life easy for him.
I said somewhere else that usually it is a Herrera/Mata/Valencia triangle. If one of those elements is well off their game, the whole thing breaks down.
Almost as though those good performances - with the same fullback - never happened.
If he gets plaudits for good games he can take criticism when he's not good. Without trying to blame other players.
He wasn't all that bad today anyway. Just a bit average. It happens. Players have good games and average games. We'd win the league if all our players had good games, every game.
I dont know how many times he had the possibility to play a risky pass, but waited and opted for a simple side pass. He surely has the freedom to try something more adventurous, hopefully he finds his form again
Is there a player in the world that has shown they can consistently break down mourinho's chelsea at home when they park the bus? Pretty sure messi has failed at this task. I don't expect much from Mata
So what then, we should just concede defeat and set up with 10 defenders?
- Status