Lingard signs new £100k 4 year contract (Sky) | Official: Option to extend for a further year

Status
Not open for further replies.
AllezLesDiables said:
Doesn't mean Jose doesn't make mistakes, which he does quite often. I crucified him a few years back over on a Chelsea site for his handling of KDB and laid into the Mourinhonistas who had been taken in by Jose's demagoguery.

Lingard is a poor man's Welbeck. If Liverpool had handed out a 100k pound deal to Jonjo Shevey everyone here would have been running over to RAWK to laugh at how the contact was being spun.
Click to expand...
Makes mistakes, yes and so does every other top manager. Definitely not often though, and he did pretty good without him anyway. KDB was shite back then whenever he got playing time. I can see why Mourinho didn't believe in him. It wasn't exactly easy to see the potential for him to become what he has now, from what I saw.

I always hang around on different football forums and I noticed it is usually the same type of people you have on every forum moaning about youngsters not getting time. That's the kind of group on the Chelsea forums going on about the treatment if KDB. It's not like they have some special skill to spot talent, and they don't even get to see enough of the player to make an informed decision.

When it comes to Chelsea, the same people have said Mceachran and Kakuta weren't getting enough time and that they would become world class and look how it turned out for them.
 
Last edited:
reddevilzZ said:
And they will sit happily on the bench without complaining !!! Great logic
Click to expand...

We have had squad players in the past who are better than Lingard. Other top sides in europe right now have better squad players than Lingard. Lingard isn't the highest possible level of player that can be a back-up/squad option.

You do know this don't you?
 
The thing is, we've had loads of similar players over the years who have been successful here. Players who may not be considered consistently at other top 4 sides but with great management, we were able to make the most of them during some of our most successful runs. I'm talking about the likes of Evans, Fletcher, Jones, Smalling, Welbeck, Young, O'Shea, The Twins et al - each of which to varying degrees played a part in league winning sides and successful CL campaigns. Lingard is no different than any of these players and the fact that he's local should only solidify his importance to the club.
 
Raoul said:
The thing is, we've had loads of similar players over the years who have been successful here. Players who may not be considered consistently at other top 4 sides but with great management, we were able to make the most of them during some of our most successful runs. I'm talking about the likes of Evans, Fletcher, Jones, Smalling, Welbeck, Young, O'Shea, The Twins et al - each of which to varying degrees played a part in league winning sides and successful CL campaigns. Lingard is no different than any of these players and the fact that he's local should only solidify his importance to the club.
Click to expand...

Fletcher was a PFA team of the year with us and bossed it against the top sides in the league and some of the best sides in Europe. Young was one of the best wingers in the PL before he came here. And the rest with the obvious exception of O'Shea only contributed to one title and Lingard is not the level of any of them.
 
Keeps It tidy said:
Fletcher was a PFA team of the year with us and bossed it against the top sides in the league and some of the best sides in Europe. Young was one of the best wingers in the PL before he came here. And the rest with the obvious exception of O'Shea only contributed to one title and Lingard is not the level of any of them.
Click to expand...

The point is none of these players were regarded as very good. They punched well above their weight because they had a good manager to bring the best out of them. I see no reason why Lingard can't be in that same category.
 
Raoul said:
The point is none of these players were regarded as very good. They punched well above their weight because they had a good manager to bring the best out of them. I see no reason why Lingard can't be in that same category.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Lingard has so much potential i feel the amount of stick he gets on here is completely unjustified. I do miss Fletch though, i firmly believe that had he not been suspended for the 2009 champions league final we would have been much more competitive.
 
Raoul said:
The point is none of these players were regarded as very good. They punched well above their weight because they had a good manager to bring the best out of them. I see no reason why Lingard can't be in that same category.
Click to expand...
You never know but personally I think that Fletcher was far more talented than Lingard. I don't think he punched above his weight. He was tipped for great things as a youngster and ended up being a very good footballer despite injuries.

Lingard is a lot more average in his natural qualities IMO and especially when you consider that he's an attacker. Having stamina, awareness, etc. as your best qualities is great as a defense leaning midfielder but not what you want from your right winger/forward at Manchester United. We seem to aspire to reach the level of Barcelona, Madrid and Bayern yet have players like Lingard starting as an attacker. It's a bit silly.

I think what irks most people is just that - that he starts. It's a sign of how rubbish we are in attack that a decent at best player like him starts games regularly. Also shows how well we've managed our more talented attackers.

On face value I don't mind Lingard staying. He does give you some decent qualities. Like I've said before, I just disagree with his usage. He's too important right now and not good enough for that. The hope is that he can become another Park for us and I hope he can, but as of now, he doesn't appear to have as much quality and it's telling that even our backups are worse now.
 
O'Shea would look utterly useless in a team that struggle to win matches. Park might look useless in such a team too.

It seems some people don't quite get the concept of a squad player. Hint: They are normally not capable of lifting the team to a higher level.

Lingard could easily be a good squad option for us once we get our act together. You'd think he was a complete pub player the way some people carry on.
 
amolbhatia50k said:
You never know but personally I think that Fletcher was far more talented than Lingard. I don't think he punched above his weight. He was tipped for great things as a youngster and ended up being a very good footballer despite injuries.

Lingard is a lot more average in his natural qualities IMO and especially when you consider that he's an attacker. Having stamina, awareness, etc. as your best qualities is great as a defense leaning midfielder but not what you want from your right winger/forward at Manchester United. We seem to aspire to reach the level of Barcelona, Madrid and Bayern yet have players like Lingard starting as an attacker. It's a bit silly.

I think what irks most people is just that - that he starts. It's a sign of how rubbish we are in attack that a decent at best player like him starts games regularly. Also shows how well we've managed our more talented attackers.

On face value I don't mind Lingard staying. He does give you some decent qualities. Like I've said before, I just disagree with his usage. He's too important right now and not good enough for that. The hope is that he can become another Park for us and I hope he can, but as of now, he doesn't appear to have as much quality and it's telling that even our backups are worse now.
Click to expand...

I think in Fletch's case he just had a stable personality and a good work ethic, and most importantly, a manager who saw and nurtured his potential. He came up at the same time as Bojan Djordjic, who was also highly regarded at the time, but never made it and was soon out of the club (IIRC for attitude problems or the like). The intangibles - things we generally can't see during our limited observations on match day - but that managers can because they are with them all week, are what separate seemingly talented players.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
O'Shea would look utterly useless in a team that struggle to win matches. Park might look useless in such a team too.

It seems some people don't quite get the concept of a squad player. Hint: They are normally not capable of lifting the team to a higher level.

Lingard could easily be a good squad option for us once we get our act together. You'd think he was a complete pub player the way some people carry on.
Click to expand...

You mean the Park Ji Sung that was nominated for UEFA Forward of the year and helped PSV sll the way to the CL semis? He could not shine on a lesser team?
 
I don't mind him a squad filler. Him as a regular starter says more about how ineffective we have been in terms of getting the best out of the better talents in the squad. If he was coming of the bench or getting the odd cup game, I don't think many will complain. The wages are outrageous; but are they confirmed?

And to be honest, his new contract is more out of necessity than some of the things mentioned in his praise in this thread. Carrick, Young and Rooney's time with us is most likely coming to an end, Jones and Smalling can't be trusted due to injuries, Januzaj has regressed each season since his breakthrough and Shaw has flattered to deceive so far. Our home-grown/British contingent is down to the bare-bones. We basically have Pogba and Rashford, who we don't have to register for a while, as our home-grown talents with definite long term future. We cannot challenge on four fronts with a squad made of 18-19 players. We need at least 5-6 players besides the 17 foreign players we can register. It would be near possible to price away Kane, Bale or Alli from their respective clubs, and the rest of British talent is a bit mediocre. That is why it is better for us to keep Lingard, rather than spend 10-15m + wages on some mediocre British player to fill the squad.
 
Keeps It tidy said:
You mean the Park Ji Sung that was nominated for UEFA Forward of the year and helped PSV sll the way to the CL semis? He could not shine on a lesser team?
Click to expand...

Yeah, alright - not a great example. He was pretty good for the NT too, in a different role than his United one. Still, shining for a lesser team doesn't mean you're the sort of player who will elevate a dysfunctional team.

The point was that we're dysfunctional at the moment. Lingard won't fix that. But we can't get rid of every player on our books who won't lift us to the next level by virtue of their brilliance.

Those squad players people keep referring to as far superior to Lingard weren't brought into a team in shambles. They were useful parts in a machinery that worked. None of them were players you'd bring in to radically strengthen a struggling team - obviously not.

We have to believe we're not too far from being functional again. When that happens we can judge Lingard as a squad player. He's local, he's not lazy, he's seemingly capable of carrying out instructions - all of which is very good if we're discussing a squad player. If people seriously think his basic ability is so terrible that none of it matters, then fair enough. I'd call it an extreme view myself.
 
AllezLesDiables said:
I don't think anyone hates Lingard they're unhappy that this signing shows poor business acumen because his play and future potential don't warrant the contract he received.

Be a way from being the top doesn't justify bad business.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, the Lingard threads before the contract news wouldn't be filled with "It's disgraceful that we have such an average player at United, we'll never win trophies with shite like this" type of posts.
 
top1whoisman said:
If that was the case, the Lingard threads before the contract news wouldn't be filled with "It's disgraceful that we have such an average player at United, we'll never win trophies with shite like this" type of posts.
Click to expand...

It's the Caf people go to far in their adoration of players and managers but also go to far in their dislike or fake outrage.
 
Raoul said:
The point is none of these players were regarded as very good. They punched well above their weight because they had a good manager to bring the best out of them. I see no reason why Lingard can't be in that same category.
Click to expand...

SAF was the master of getting the best out of average players. Is Mourinho the same? I can't think of too many PL / CL winning sides not managed by SAF that have had players as poor as Lingard in their team. We need to improve massively over the next few years, replacing Lingard is one of the most obvious ways of doing that. He's one of the worst players in the squad.

Comparisons to Brown, O'Shea and Fletcher etc are unfair. They were good players, just not world class. Lingard is more comparable to Cleverly and Gibson, painfully average and well below the required standard.
 
Mr.Plow said:
SAF was the master of getting the best out of average players. Is Mourinho the same? I can't think of too many PL / CL winning sides not managed by SAF that have had players as poor as Lingard in their team. We need to improve massively over the next few years, replacing Lingard is one of the most obvious ways of doing that. He's one of the worst players in the squad.

Comparisons to Brown, O'Shea and Fletcher etc are unfair. They were good players, just not world class. Lingard is more comparable to Cleverly and Gibson, painfully average and well below the required standard.
Click to expand...

Just about the entire Leicester side spare Mahrez and Kante could've been classed as such.
 
Fantastic contribution from him in the first half: skills, attitude and effort. Loved it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.