Mason Mount | Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not going ahead with this transfer would actually benefit us in the transfer market moving forward. Laying down a marker that business is not as usual. Seriously, 1 year left and Chelsea are trying to get 65 million quid for him just because they have overspent? No, just no. Next.
 
We probably don't have the money for Caicedo (90m+) or Rice (100m+), as we are on very tight budget (100m + player sales) and we still need the funds to chase for forward (60-80m) and keeper (40m).

The best midfielder we could hope for is Rabiot (free), or even Lavia (40m), if not Mount this summer.

Good luck to us for selling our players to raise funds. So far we raise 1m from selling Iqbal.
 
RedRonaldo said:
The biggest problem with us, is that we always let everyone and his dogs know who is our main target.
Click to expand...
Garethw said:
This has nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with the club not wanting to be ripped off.

let’s say you see an online deal for a midrange TV for £1000. You head in store to purchase as you have your heart set on this model but find that the deal is over and the store is now pricing the TV at £1500. You speak with the manager and they won’t negotiate the price.

You then see a premium TV at £1700. More than you budgeted for but far better value than the midrange TV at £1500.

What would you do? Buy the midrange TV at an inflated price but feel ripped off by the store? Or pay a bit extra and go for the premium option?
Click to expand...
Any discount codes online knocking about?
 
This will be done next week. Disgraceful how they’ve treated Mount. Reminds me of how Woodward have treated our players in the past.
 
simonhch said:
Funadmentally, and most simplistically, there are two ways to play three in midfield. A regular triangle and an inverted triangle. A regular triangle gives you two players at the base and one at the tip, an inverted triangle gives you one at the base and two at the top. This is at least according to the Dutch philosophy of football.

The Caicedo vs Mount debate is essentially a debate on the shape of the midfield and the orientation of that triangle. ETH where he can has attempted to play the inverted triangle. Indeed our best performance of the season, in terms of control and shape, probably came in the 2-0 vs Spurs at Old Trafford where we pressed high with an inverted triangle.

It is automatically assumed that an inverted triangle provides less defensive strength, and this can certainly be true if you sit off as a team and play to the counter attack. But if you are possession orientated, a direction ETH clearly wants to move us in, then the inverted triangle allows you to press much higher up the pitch, it also gives you more creative options in the final third.

With Mount I believed you’d see Casemiro as a traditional 6 and Mount and Bruno as aggressive hybrid 8/10s. Able to press high and hard out of possession, and provide creative stimuli in possession. As well as late runs into the box. With Caicedo I believed we’d see Casemiro as a 6, with a little more license to go forward, Caicedo as a hybrid 6/8, as he’s naturally more defensively orientated, and Bruno as a true 10. The issue there is that it becomes more predictable to mark our primary creative player out of the game - as there is only one - and it reduces (although doesn’t eliminate - our ability to press high up the pitch. Defending is done a little deeper, and a greater emphasis is put on counter attacking.

Eriksen is a bit of a conundrum in this role, because while he sits deeper than he did earlier in his career, and isn’t a natural presser, from those deep positions he has an ability to pass between the lines that our other midfielders don’t. It’s an ability that Caicedo doesn’t possess in anything like the same quantity. Hence player Caicedo and Casemiro together would necessitate a very different tactical approach to Casemiro and Mount.

The beauty of Casemiro is that he is good enough to play as a lone 6, without a semi permanent partner next to him to share the defensive load. His signing is a facilitator of a more front foot forward approach. Yet signing Caicedo over Mount betrays that ambition.

I am a big proponent of the Mount signing, not because of the individual quality of the player (which I think is much, much higher than many on here give him credit for) but because of how he would fit into our system. And at the end of the day it’s all about how the team works together, not the individuals comprising it.

I think signing Caicedo will lead to a prosaic midfield and a much more predictable approach to the game. I also take great direction from the fact that Mount is clearly ETH’s first choice which says two things (1) he is convinced of the quality of the player and (2) most importantly, he’s identified him as the type of player he needs to implement his desired system. Frankly I think we should all be behind that.

I have said it many Times in this thread, but I’ll say it again. The Mount vs Caicedo debate isn’t just a debate on individual players, it is also an unwitting referendum on how the team plays. People so fervently saying “walk away” and proposing completely different types of players like Caicedo, aren’t just saying they want a different player, they are also saying they want the team to play in a different way. That’s just bonkers to me, and I am fairly sure most don’t realise what they are doing. I am equally sure it will become apparent when half way through the season the same people are saying we have no creativity and don’t press high enough up the pitch.
Click to expand...
There’s a lengthy interview with LVG somewhere, pre Utd days, where he explains in a bit of detail why he prefers the inverted triangle (he calls it “point back”). Pretty much he said what you say here. There was some detail about getting players into the right spaces and passing options from different parts of the pitch and I found it very persuasive.

I also favour a player somewhat like Mount rather than a Caicedo type for this formation. The beauty of De Jong is that he can play point forward or point back and has the skill, intelligence and physical attributes to do both “at once”. But I like the idea of Mount - think he would be a good fit. He’s just a difficult player to get excited about!
 
VP89 said:
Tuchel loves him and he was very good for Tuchel.
Of course no manager has certain longevity at Bayern really..
Click to expand...
Tuchel won't stay there for long, and don't think the Bayern fans appreciate his football at all.
 
Does he offer much creativity? He looks like he has a good shot on him, great positioning in and around the box, good set pieces and good short passing.
 
pocco said:
Who is mid range and who is premium in your analogy?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t being entirely serious and was chatting bullshit as usual, but Mount was the mid range and Caicedo was the premier (much higher ceiling than Mount IMO).
 
OrcaFat said:
There’s a lengthy interview with LVG somewhere, pre Utd days, where he explains in a bit of detail why he prefers the inverted triangle (he calls it “point back”). Pretty much he said what you say here. There was some detail about getting players into the right spaces and passing options from different parts of the pitch and I found it very persuasive.

I also favour a player somewhat like Mount rather than a Caicedo type for this formation. The beauty of De Jong is that he can play point forward or point back and has the skill, intelligence and physical attributes to do both “at once”. But I like the idea of Mount - think he would be a good fit. He’s just a difficult player to get excited about!
Click to expand...
I believe there was a brief period Under LVG after all his experimentation in his first season when we Got glimpses of that formation working very well but he abandoned it completely in his second season and opted for much more rigid 4231 undoing everything .

Agree with you that Mount as a player might not be most exciting but the thought process and the direction his signing represents is far more excitable than going for Caicedo atleast in my opinion .
 
simonhch said:
Funadmentally, and most simplistically, there are two ways to play three in midfield. A regular triangle and an inverted triangle. A regular triangle gives you two players at the base and one at the tip, an inverted triangle gives you one at the base and two at the top. This is at least according to the Dutch philosophy of football.

The Caicedo vs Mount debate is essentially a debate on the shape of the midfield and the orientation of that triangle. ETH where he can has attempted to play the inverted triangle. Indeed our best performance of the season, in terms of control and shape, probably came in the 2-0 vs Spurs at Old Trafford where we pressed high with an inverted triangle.

It is automatically assumed that an inverted triangle provides less defensive strength, and this can certainly be true if you sit off as a team and play to the counter attack. But if you are possession orientated, a direction ETH clearly wants to move us in, then the inverted triangle allows you to press much higher up the pitch, it also gives you more creative options in the final third.

With Mount I believed you’d see Casemiro as a traditional 6 and Mount and Bruno as aggressive hybrid 8/10s. Able to press high and hard out of possession, and provide creative stimuli in possession. As well as late runs into the box. With Caicedo I believed we’d see Casemiro as a 6, with a little more license to go forward, Caicedo as a hybrid 6/8, as he’s naturally more defensively orientated, and Bruno as a true 10. The issue there is that it becomes more predictable to mark our primary creative player out of the game - as there is only one - and it reduces (although doesn’t eliminate - our ability to press high up the pitch. Defending is done a little deeper, and a greater emphasis is put on counter attacking.

Eriksen is a bit of a conundrum in this role, because while he sits deeper than he did earlier in his career, and isn’t a natural presser, from those deep positions he has an ability to pass between the lines that our other midfielders don’t. It’s an ability that Caicedo doesn’t possess in anything like the same quantity. Hence player Caicedo and Casemiro together would necessitate a very different tactical approach to Casemiro and Mount.

The beauty of Casemiro is that he is good enough to play as a lone 6, without a semi permanent partner next to him to share the defensive load. His signing is a facilitator of a more front foot forward approach. Yet signing Caicedo over Mount betrays that ambition.

I am a big proponent of the Mount signing, not because of the individual quality of the player (which I think is much, much higher than many on here give him credit for) but because of how he would fit into our system. And at the end of the day it’s all about how the team works together, not the individuals comprising it.

I think signing Caicedo will lead to a prosaic midfield and a much more predictable approach to the game. I also take great direction from the fact that Mount is clearly ETH’s first choice which says two things (1) he is convinced of the quality of the player and (2) most importantly, he’s identified him as the type of player he needs to implement his desired system. Frankly I think we should all be behind that.

I have said it many Times in this thread, but I’ll say it again. The Mount vs Caicedo debate isn’t just a debate on individual players, it is also an unwitting referendum on how the team plays. People so fervently saying “walk away” and proposing completely different types of players like Caicedo, aren’t just saying they want a different player, they are also saying they want the team to play in a different way. That’s just bonkers to me, and I am fairly sure most don’t realise what they are doing. I am equally sure it will become apparent when half way through the season the same people are saying we have no creativity and don’t press high enough up the pitch.
Click to expand...
A lot of what you say here is correct in terms of the shape of the midfield being different, but I don't agree with your conclusion that only the inverted triangle can work for us (or that it immediately means we're more predictable). In fact I think many of our more embarrassing defeats this season came from not having the extra solidity that a regular triangle midfield would have offered. I think when you have a midfielder as creative as Bruno, it's not as important to have this 2nd creator either. If we didn't have someone of Bruno's level, then I think your point would be more relevant. If we have Caicedo we also still have the option of playing Eriksen in games where we do expect to dominate more.

Our midfield has looked extremely poor whenever we came up against better teams this season imo despite playing this inverted triangle, with Eriksen often being one of our worst performers in these matches. As great as Casemiro is, when we're dealing with particularly good midfields he's struggled to dominate in the same way due to the lack of support. Despite being much worse technically, I actually think Fred has often helped us more in some of these games due to the extra pressing he provides, even if his positioning is nowhere near as good as someone like Caicedo. Cas has chipped in with quite a few goals also, and having a player like Caicedo might make it easier for him to push into the opponent's box without having to worry about his vacated space being exploited on the counter.
 
redIndianDevil said:
Like giving them huge raises and contracts?
Click to expand...

Like not being able to sell Pogba, Romero, Lingard, Marcos Rojo etc etc…

If the story is true they let Mount’s agent get a hold of Reece James contract and their offer was way off the mark. Sounds as Woody as it gets.
 
Dazzmondo said:
A lot of what you say here is correct in terms of the shape of the midfield being different, but I don't agree with your conclusion that only the inverted triangle can work for us (or that it immediately means we're more predictable). In fact I think many of our more embarrassing defeats this season came from not having the extra solidity that a regular triangle midfield would have offered. I think when you have a midfielder as creative as Bruno, it's not as important to have this 2nd creator either. If we didn't have someone of Bruno's level, then I think your point would be more relevant. If we have Caicedo we also still have the option of playing Eriksen in games where we do expect to dominate more.

Our midfield has looked extremely poor whenever we came up against better teams this season imo despite playing this inverted triangle, with Eriksen often being one of our worst performers in these matches. As great as Casemiro is, when we're dealing with particularly good midfields he's struggled to dominate in the same way due to the lack of support. Despite being much worse technically, I actually think Fred has often helped us more in some of these games due to the extra pressing he provides, even if his positioning is nowhere near as good as someone like Caicedo. Cas has chipped in with quite a few goals also, and having a player like Caicedo might make it easier for him to push into the opponent's box without having to worry about his vacated space being exploited on the counter.
Click to expand...

I think the reason the inverted triangle didn’t work well for us at times was because of the lack of a second player that fit the role well, either through lack of pressing ability, or lack of creative ability. The beauty of Mount is that he has both.

I’ll also venture that out big defeats have been systemic failures rather than specific ones.

Nonetheless, I am not positing that it’s a one size fits all approach. There has to be some tactical fluidity to our approach, especially in big games, even if we should still develop a dominant style.
 
This is how all our transfers go haggling over the fee. Will be done eventually as the player is actually willing to move. United will just be upset that Chelsea are leaking everything stage by stage.
 
redIndianDevil said:
I get why we got mad. What is there in discussing face to face? Looks like deliberately wasting time.
Click to expand...
Manutd wasting their own time. If it was your last bid then why wasting your time. Leave it and move on. If your manager want this player badly then make acceptable offer. It could be over by now.

You put first bid second bid and third bid in two days interval each. Why wasting that much time and leak news like we are wasting your time?
 
crossy1686 said:
Mount has to request a transfer now, there’s no point in pursuing this when Chelsea are playing games.
Click to expand...

Yup, and seemingly Mount is not in any danger of tarnishing his rep when it's clear Chelsea are prepared to get rid of him.
 
If I ran Utd, I’d bid 50m for Mount and then publicly announce that every day my offer would lower by exactly 1 million.

Wait 10 days, it’s 40m, etc.

It’s be so funny to see Chelsea trying to ‘negotiate’ with such an offer.

Then I’d offer 80m for Caicedo without any such feckery or games and watch Chelsea really squirm.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
If I ran Utd, I’d bid 50m for Mount and then publicly announce that every day my offer would lower by exactly 1 million.

Wait 10 days, it’s 40m, etc.

It’s be so funny to see Chelsea trying to ‘negotiate’ with such an offer.

Then I’d offer 80m for Caicedo without any such feckery or games and watch Chelsea really squirm.
Click to expand...
You’d probably get no business done all summer.
 
Mount would be a better option in our midfield ahead of anyone other than Bruno and Casemiro.....that said, if we buy him, we still need to bring in a player capable of covering for Casemiro as evident by our record when he missed matches
 
amolbhatia50k said:
You’d probably get no business done all summer.
Click to expand...

I’d get the Caicedo deal done.

And I’d go all out to sign Kane.

The point is I’d purposely sabotage the Mount deal because I don’t want him and doing it that way would amuse me.

But don’t worry, I don’t own Utd. We’ll end up paying 55-60m for him while Chelsea buy a better midfielder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.