Yes I have. He is a sub more than twice as often as he starts PL games. That makes him a back-up player.
7
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 20
- Goals
- 1
- Assists
- 1
- Yellow cards
- 2
- Status
Yes I have. He is a sub more than twice as often as he starts PL games. That makes him a back-up player.
Surely it's impossible to do the bolded bit as his injuries have directly impacted his appearances?
But overall, Arnold/Murtough was just as inept as we were under Woodward, if not more so. Here's hoping Ineos are infinitely better - and the signs are there that they are, simply based on who they've been head-hunting/appointing into those positions.
United do not have the financial resources to carry a £10m+ per season back-up to Fernandes. And whoever thought Mount could play as a number 8 should be fired.
There is a world of difference between a low priced, low salary gamble, and a £55m transfer with wages above £10m per season to then use that player in a different position to that he played for Chelsea.
It is just simple incompetence - a clear theme in the Murtough/Ten Hag era.
For most of the sub appearances, though probably not all, he has been fit enough to start. If he was an important player the ratio of starts to sub appearances might be 10 starts 3 sub, or 9 starts 4 sub. Instead it is 4 starts, 9 sub.
Yeah, I personally thought he was bought to replace Eriksen in that 8/CM position, but seeing how open we've been all season & with Casemiros legs completely gone, not sure it would have made any difference. And it is kind of a void the emergence of Mainoo has now filled anyway.
As for his sub/starts appearances, i always felt like it was mostly at the start of the year as he was slowly introduced and then he suffered a big injury and ever since then, whenever he's tried to make a comeback and was gradually eased in with sub appearances....off he went injuried, again. But that's just how I've interpreted things.
Honestly, considering our form and the form of our attackers, I suspect Mount would have worked his way into the starting lineup earlier this season, whether it was in the position we supposedly signed him for, or even with him pushed up wide left or right.
But yeah, he's been a disaster of a signing thus far. Hopefully he can turn it around next season, especially the luck with the injuries bit.
Mason Mount is three kids in a trench coat
Unfortunately for you I only bet with emotional stakes like Honour and Humiliation
Your hypothesis is an interesting one, by all means, and I’m not claiming it couldn’t work, or that there aren’t costs as well as benefits to playing Bruno. However my point is that there is very little evidence of teams with Bruno in their squads chosing solutions without him and profitting on it. Even Stramacciforgothisname at Udinese, and Fernando Santos at Portugal, both whom struggled to release or accomodate Bruno The Chance Creator (Goals/assists/chances made/key passes), still found places in their set ups for him in the team, and came to find that better than the alternatives. Even if the no 10 role is clearly his best, coaches have used him as LW, RW, SS, B-2-B and even no 6 at a stretch, but importantly - hardly ever subbed him for a specialist in these positions to see the team improve. So I remain sceptical about the potential in releasing a team from this hypothesized ‘straight-jacket’, even if there isn’t much evidence against it neither.
I take issue with some of the argumentation re his negative impact on team performance of the type that his characteristics are poorly understood and his limitations have tactical consequences that are underestimated as opposed to overestimation of ‘hollywood moments’ or ‘stat padding’ detrimental to team tactics. These are the type of things that fool laymen, not coaches above a fairly modest level I think, and are comparable to overruling medical teams decisions on what kind of a treatment a player needs. We just don’t know enough factors.
I see more technique, positional ability, short passing/retention qualities than you do in Bruno, undoubtedly, and I’m not saying I’m right about that. But I believe he would be capable of playing a no 10 role in a Pep team very well if that’s what he’s told to. I also find it interesting how Ten Hag, notwithstanding his inability to create a flowing play out of this season’s squad status, several times have pointed out our lack of positional discipline both in and out of possession, while sticking with Bruno as both captain and ever-present. I’m inclined to accept that Ten Hag can choose the wrong tactical medicine for this squad this season, but I’m not prepared to believe he can’t see very easily which players function or malfunction in regards to his central tactical concerns. Well, there is certainly a chance we’ll be able to learn more about this next season.
and that's why you don't do drugs kids.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe for a second you’re a medical doctor, and I’ve seen your level of argumentation on this forum for a while. There is seldom room for more than one argument at a time with you, and your medical expertise seems limited to throwing around psychiatric diagnoses off-hand.
I agree with this post (not sure if you ment to argue with).
Mount wasn't bought to be a backup / competition to Bruno, this was very clear from the start. Eth mistake was that he actually believed / still believes he can play Bruno + 1 another attacking minded player in midfield.
I don't know if Ten Hag is a good coach, but his overarching idea how to play football is going to get him fired very soon.
You make a lot of valid points, but there's one thing I mentioned earlier - Bruno was tailor-made for Oleball, with Rashford/Greenwood/Martial bombing in counter attacks and "McFred" screening back 4. I don't argue his qualities as an attacking midfielder/creative force, but I do point out we might want to move away from this setup - in which case I don't mind Mount as I do rate him as a player overall. At the same time, as you pointed out correctly, I do question "net" impact of Bruno in the team. This is mostly because I don't rate him off the ball, I also think he's not good at progressing the ball (btw for this reason alone I doubt Pep would go anywhere near Bruno).Unfortunately for you I only bet with emotional stakes like Honour and Humiliation
Your hypothesis is an interesting one, by all means, and I’m not claiming it couldn’t work, or that there aren’t costs as well as benefits to playing Bruno. However my point is that there is very little evidence of teams with Bruno in their squads chosing solutions without him and profitting on it. Even Stramacciforgothisname at Udinese, and Fernando Santos at Portugal, both whom struggled to release or accomodate Bruno The Chance Creator (Goals/assists/chances made/key passes), still found places in their set ups for him in the team, and came to find that better than the alternatives. Even if the no 10 role is clearly his best, coaches have used him as LW, RW, SS, B-2-B and even no 6 at a stretch, but importantly - hardly ever subbed him for a specialist in these positions to see the team improve. So I remain sceptical about the potential in releasing a team from this hypothesized ‘straight-jacket’, even if there isn’t much evidence against it neither.
I take issue with some of the argumentation re his negative impact on team performance of the type that his characteristics are poorly understood and his limitations have tactical consequences that are underestimated as opposed to overestimation of ‘hollywood moments’ or ‘stat padding’ detrimental to team tactics. These are the type of things that fool laymen, not coaches above a fairly modest level I think, and are comparable to overruling medical teams decisions on what kind of a treatment a player needs. We just don’t know enough factors.
I see more technique, positional ability, short passing/retention qualities than you do in Bruno, undoubtedly, and I’m not saying I’m right about that. But I believe he would be capable of playing a no 10 role in a Pep team very well if that’s what he’s told to. I also find it interesting how Ten Hag, notwithstanding his inability to create a flowing play out of this season’s squad status, several times have pointed out our lack of positional discipline both in and out of possession, while sticking with Bruno as both captain and ever-present. I’m inclined to accept that Ten Hag can choose the wrong tactical medicine for this squad this season, but I’m not prepared to believe he can’t see very easily which players function or malfunction in regards to his central tactical concerns. Well, there is certainly a chance we’ll be able to learn more about this next season.
And again, like mentioned before, Mainoo complicates things even more I am afraid. Are we going to play him as a conservative #8 so that Bruno can excel in his best position as out and out attacker? Are we going to play Bruno deeper (something I personally think is a "sackable" offense and I made this clear very early in the season)? We certainly are not going to play Mainoo, Mount and Bruno.
I think ETH completely, I mean COMPLETELY misjudged midfield situation last summer and we will be in troubles for a long time because of that. At the moment though, he doesn't have much of a choice though so it's not like even if he wanted to make changes he could actually have options to do it so like I said 2 months ago, I would be surprised to see Mount starting again this season.
Think its a little unfair to label him a back up player or judge him when he has missed mostof the season.
However, my initial thought when we signed him was good player, but big summer signing that doesnt solve oneof a few (whih is now more than a few) holes in our first eleven, odd signing and actually the summer signing considering signings that followed, that raised doubts for me about Ten Hag
However, my initial thought when we signed him was good player, but big summer signing that doesnt solve oneof a few (whih is now more than a few) holes in our first eleven, odd signing and actually the summer signing considering signings that followed, that raised doubts for me about Ten Hag
Mount's ideal role is the one that Bruno serves in. Whether next season or the next, we'll have to choose between the two.
Yup. If you know anything about football it was obvious that Mount was not the player our midfield needed last summer. We needed and still need a pacy CDM who can cover a lot of ground. Mount and Antony are two terrible signings, Casemiro was great for 7 months and Höjlund is not very good, yet. ETH is terrible at transfers.
There's one weird thing though, it's "bad at transfers" but on a different level. Take Amrabat for example. How on earth is that possible that we chased him all summer? I mean, how could anyone think he fills any gap in that squad? Casemiro was showing serious signs of decline last season, we needed a more mobile backup, and eth came up with this guy?
Hojlund is another one I don't really get, fairly limited player who is effective at poaching - and we pay big bucks just to play him in a team that doesn't create any chances for strikers and actually requires someone that can bring wide forwards into the game, as they are our main threat. So what do we do? We turn Hojlund into a target man and make Onana, one of the best gks in terms of passing, lump it forward to Hojlund.
It's not like ETH looks like a bad coach at the moment, it seems like has has lost his mind.
Now, the reason I came up with this rant is because I think Mount is another player that doesn't fit the squad needs (in terms of another attacking minded player). However, I do believe he's the least of our problems as he is good at things that we lack (mobile, good technique, good at winning the second ball, effective at set pieces) and he is definitely versatile. So, whatever comes after Ten Hag I am fairly optimistic about Mount being useful. That will, however, impact Bruno who at the very least has a strong position in the squad.
One of the strangest and pointless signings made by the club. It's worse when nearly the whole fanbase knew we didn't even need him.
Only Ten Hag seemed not to know
The worst signing in our history, a marquee fee for a player we didn't need and the manager doesn't even fancy. I'll be scratching my head about this transfer until I'm dead.
idk it is between him and sanchez. I remember when sanchez came in i thought no way would we play him on LW when we had rashford/martial battling each other and actually playing super well during that period. Figured he had to be playing RW and thought it was perhaps a good idea.
Then we played him at LW.
So yeah tough between mount and sanchez.
Not even the worst signing in squad ffs
Look at the squad closer
I'm happy to just write this season off for him, and hope next season can be better, under a new manager. Fresh start. He's always kind of baffled me as a player, but I've got nothing against him and hope he can be a success here.
If we get a new manager next season, that could see Mount given a chance to genuinely fight for his spot in the starting eleven. If we go for Tuchel or Amorim, then Mount would be such a nice fit in their 5-3-2/3-5-2 systems they play.
Agreed with the above.As much as I was against this signing initially, if we get a new coach in with some new ideas there’s a good chance he can play a decent part next season. Even more so if it’s Tuchel who has used him to good effect before.
He's a really good player so hopefully we can see that from him next season.
The injuries are a major worry though.
The injuries are a major worry though.
Just a joke signing. Not necessarily because he’s a bad player but because we simply didn’t need him. £55m for a player that plays the same position as always fully fit Bruno.
Then when you consider his injury record before we signed him are we really surprised he’s been injured all season?
I can’t understand why we signed Van De Beek when we had Bruno for £40m, 2 seasons later we make the exact same mistake spending £55m. That’s £105m on 2 players we never needed. The people making the recruitment decisions are complete morons. It’s not hard to look at the squad and realise where we need to buys players. CAM is definitely not a position we needed.
Then when you consider his injury record before we signed him are we really surprised he’s been injured all season?
I can’t understand why we signed Van De Beek when we had Bruno for £40m, 2 seasons later we make the exact same mistake spending £55m. That’s £105m on 2 players we never needed. The people making the recruitment decisions are complete morons. It’s not hard to look at the squad and realise where we need to buys players. CAM is definitely not a position we needed.
How is having a new coach going to change anything when he’s been injured all season?
I still think it was a bad idea to sign him don't get me wrong but presuming he can obviously get back to fitness I'm just trying to look at the bright side and think if Tuchel comes in, having worked well with him before, he should be able to find some place for him. Even when fit here it's never really looked like Ten Hag has a clue what to do with him.
Even if we take out the injuries the signing didn't make sense
Buying somebody out of their contract on the final year for this amount makes sense when it's a rvp type, the final piece of the puzzle and you don't wanna wait a year, so you prioritise it.
With this signing we still needed at least 4 minimum. Mount would have needed to play majority of the season and either hit prime Bruno type numbers or help in assisting our strikers to get top level numbers. Baffling thought process behind the signing when he would have been free this season
If the worry was he wouldn't join us then so be it, why do we need to convince players by harming ourselves.
Do hope for a good season from him next year but let's see
Injuries aside, the guy always seem massively tidy whenever he comes on. He has great movement off the ball too. I get the criticism for the amount of money we spent vs how long he's been on the pitch, but when he's there I've not had any complaints. People seem to have an agenda against him.
Crystal Palace 4:0 Man Utd
21 passes completed in 80 mins. Ten Hag basically uses his 3rd midfield as a non factor in possession.
He was ok in the first ten minutes. Then faded badly. Seen that happen before this season both with players and the team in general.
I have a hard time properly evaluating midfield performances in this setup tbh. Unless you're sitting at the base and actually getting on the ball, the "advanced 8's" basically never see the ball.
Thought he looked ok to begin with, not played all season and then came into that. I won't judge him on this.
Yes, another reason to dump Ten Hag, just absurd stuff.
Will seriously doubt Ineos and their "experts" if Mount is the future hope of United midfield. There's nothing imaginative about him and his play.
He's like DVB mk II. on doing the "silent assassin" role.
He's like DVB mk II. on doing the "silent assassin" role.
Almost a year later and same same.
With all the English talent about these days, how have we managed to end up with Mount, Wan-Bissaka, and Sancho who are all miles away from playing for England. Guess you can add Rashford to this list soon too.
It's bizarre that this is the plan, to have 1 of the 3 midfielders barely touch the ball when we have possession. You add this to playing a deep defensive line while having our forwards press high and it is really baffling what the manager is doing, it's shit even plebs like myself on an internet forum can see won't work.
In fairness to Mount I didn't get why we bought him but I thought he looked quite bright early on in the rare moments when he did get involved.
Considering how much he's been injured, I cannot assess the player he is. I hope for better luck in the next one
Utterly bang average as usual for him.
60m for a Tom Cleverley clone.
60m for a Tom Cleverley clone.
It will soon be be DVB x2 as Donny is also coming back at the end of this season as Eintracht Frankfurt are unwilling to sign him. Depressing stuff.
- Status