Mason Mount

OnlyTwoDaSilvas said:
And Henderson for Rice too. Like for like, except Rice was actually playing well. Bizarre sub.
Click to expand...

He really wanted Phillips to play the 90 it seems but yeah I'd of left Rice on as he was carrying the ball well and breaking their line.

I guess it's easy in hindsight but I did fear we wouldn't be proactive enough and we weren't. We looked much better when we moved to 433 but it was too late and the wrong personnel came on in my opinion.

Using Sancho instead of Saka and Grealish for Mount would have been the better move. Don't think Henderson did much and he didn't even bother taking a penalty so his involvement was a complete waste of time.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Don't get how Stones is evading criticism for that goal - he just sat down without actually even sticking a leg out. Mount has remained goalside of Verratti but didn't anticipate that the ball would go through - yes he could have done better but Stones is the main culprit I'd argue.
Click to expand...
You are right that first ball should have been defended well.
 
Only seen him 10 times maybe and just don't see it with him. Not really sure what he does well.
 
He was shit most of the tournament, but Chelsea fans won’t care. He clearly does things well for them.
 
Abraxas said:
I'm not doubting some of the tactical functions, my main issue is he did absolutely nothing with the ball for most of the tournament and he's clearly the man tasked with doing so of himself Phillips and Rice. As you seem to identify yourself within your second statement, fulfilling a function like this doesn't mean you have no role on the ball or in the final third as an attacking midfielder. Every position on the pitch has numerous instructions and roles contained within.

Don't even know why the Bruno comparison is coming up. Both had a poor time and probably both knackered which does not help. That aside they're very different players, Mount seems very safe to me whereas Bruno is a risk taker. I'm guessing the managers are going to prefer Mount on their worst day because he's a grafter, they all seem to love him but there is still something to be said for output.
Click to expand...
Mount did his job as he was asked and could have done better in little chances he got in attacking third. Especially he missed to touch the goal mouth cross. He is tasked to mark jorginho as well as shut the passing lane behind Maguire because it's blind side for the defenders.

No question he could be subbed soon though but again no other player was trusted to do the task of tracking jorginho and cutting passing lanes. So why he was stayed on the pitch longer. But admittedly he was poor in attacking and failed to create zero situations in attack.

Leave the mount Bruno comparision. They are not used in their respective teams same way. Every phase of attacking play for man utd came through via Bruno. For that kind of set up chelsea s mata of 2013 is best way comparable. And the total chelsea game run through him in that season and mata put decent numbers in that season too pretty much equal or better numbers to Bruno.19 goals 35 assists like that.
 
Lingard-esque tournament from him. Manager's favorite because his team ethic and work-rate but very little actual quality on the ball.
 
Really reminds me of a good version of Lingard with better passing but less wondergoals. Works his socks off, buzzes around the pitch and has a good eye for space and movement to pop up with goals but doesn’t possess any sort of real quality on the ball to create things for himself or others. Very much a supplemental type player that can play at a good level in a cohesive unit but should never be tasked as a main focus of a team.

Was evident in this England side that they needed a creative presence through the middle but he’s simply not it, and it turned the side into a sort of gritty, grifting team whose main outlet was the two man combo of Sterling and Shaw practically the entire tournament.
 
Should be playing as a proper midfielder. In no way is he any version of a playmaker. That's the sort of stupidity that'll cost England in the future.
 
A Southgate favourite that let everyone down.

Really good.player though. Probably knackered.
 
Valencia Shin Crosses said:
Very much a supplemental type player that can play at a good level in a cohesive unit but should never be tasked as a main focus of a team.
Click to expand...
That's a very fair assessment and although not exactly the same position he reminds me of Pedro a bit in that regard (who looked awful playing for us when Mourinho and Conte lost the plot but at the same time played with Iniesta, Xavi and Messi at the peak of their powers and didn't look a bit out of place).

If Havertz progresses as we think/hope he will I think Mount will compliment him very well.
 
Like him as a player and a lad but lets be honest he was fecking shit throughout the whole tournament. It’s a complete and utter joke that he repeatedly played ahead of Grealish. Grealish did so much more in his little cameos than Mount did the whole tournament.
 
Asger said:
So you must still hate Terry then.
Click to expand...

Its a game. I could never hate anyone over a game that is just entertaining to watch. I am really shocked at how many people are losing their shit over a game.
 
This was more like the Mount we saw under Lampard than the one under Tuchel, I was just constantly left wondering why he was there and if he was still on the pitch.
 
Said it before he got this over the top praise from every English pundit in past 12 months but he's not good enough in a top team, Chelsea will soon drop him under Tuchel's management too
 
I suppose he will have to take this criticism, just as he did from a section of our own fans under Lampard and use it as fuel to get better. He's a brilliant talent, and he hasn't really shown the Mount I've watched every week in the last 7 months during this tournament, certainly not the last 3 games. I think there was a clear difference in his performances pre and post isolation. He was by no means excellent in those first two games but he was one of our best attacking players.

This reactionary barrage of criticism he's getting is rather unfair, in my opinion but it's part of football and it's just more of the same for him really, as it was almost verbatim the same things being said about him during England games last year.

He'll be one of our top performers again next season I'm certain because the boy is a super talent.
 
He tried pressing them and it was sort of working for 25-30 mins. For Chelsea he creates a lot but I think it was time to sub him early in the second or at least get Grealish on and see if he can get back to helping out. Southgate just used him as a worker really but the team as a whole sat off half way through the first half and allowed them to reorganize.
 
Another player who from being underrated quickly became overrated. Can't blamw him but southgate should have subbed him. Awful tournament for him.
 
Good player but he's another in a recent long line of English players compared to Ineista, which generally makes my eyes roll.
 
I like mount and think he's an intelligent player. However it was clear he wasn't good in the previous match nor in this one.

He needed to be subbed on 60 minutes to put another body in midfield or to get somebody with pace to worry Italy and not allow them to build play so easily.

Mount wasn't getting the ball and recycling it not was he stopping and pressing Italy to destroy their attacks.

He really should have been subbed at 1-1
 
I dont really blame Mount. he tried his best but he's not a left winger, I just can't understand what his thought process was with that?

Everything was so narrow, it just didn't work at all. He should have been off at the first sub along with trippier and rice.
 
Is he considered one of the top tier talents in England because nothing I've seen from him would support that sentiment?
 
For me he was the biggest problem in the tournament.

Phillips and Rice were a very defensive tactic- however southgate removed any level of creativity by utelising Mount as his primary creative output in front .

Mount even played as a LW yesterday whilst England had much better options than him to play there.
 
The midfield of Rice and Phillips doesn't need a 3rd midfielder there just for their energy and pressing. It has energy aplenty. It needs a 3rd midfielder that will take hold of the ball and make the midfield tick by passing it around and dictating tempo. Maybe create some chances for the forwards.

Mount has not been that for the whole tournament. He has failed to make any impact. He didn't contribute offensively or in possession and whatever defensive contribution he had was debatable as Phillips and Rice were already everywhere. He was sadly, largely invisible.

I don't blame Mount for this. He is a good player for Chelsea. But the managers insistence with him though, especially while he had other options available, was rather baffling. Grealish might not be the best for pressing but every time he came on he took hold of the ball more than Mount and did more in 10 mins than Mount did in the rest of the game. Quite baffling.
 
Other than a good half against Croatia on the opening day, he has had a underwhelming tournament.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
no mate it is on the TWO Man United players
Click to expand...

Yeah and without Shaw and Maguire we wouldn't of even got to that stage!

Rashford and Sancho shouldn't have been asked to step up cold like that. Neither had touched the ball. Saka shouldn't have been taking a penalty in the first 5 either when you have senior pros like Sterling and Henderson.

Didn't see any Chelsea players do much for England full stop.
 
Hopefully Southgate will learn from this more than anyone else. He played it safe by bringing on Saka (as he can play wing back) as opposed to the more attacking Sancho and leaving on Mount for far too long (because he tracks back more than Grealish).

If Southgate was not proactive I think England win the game. Saka was the wrong sub when he went 433 and Mount should have been off by the hour mark as he was offering nothing.
 
Bebestation said:
For me he was the biggest problem in the tournament.

Phillips and Rice were a very defensive tactic- however southgate removed any level of creativity by utelising Mount as his primary creative output in front .

Mount even played as a LW yesterday whilst England had much better options than him to play there.
Click to expand...
Same. I kept thinking "is it me? do I not see what he offers or is he just playing because he won the CL?"
Literally felt like he was a passenger the whole tournament. Reminds me of a Lingard yet he kept Grealish Sancho etc out most games. I'm not going to pretend they are the saviours but......
 
TheReligion said:
Yeah and without Shaw and Maguire we wouldn't of even got to that stage!

Rashford and Sancho shouldn't have been asked to step up cold like that. Neither had touched the ball. Saka shouldn't have been taking a penalty in the first 5 either when you have senior pros like Sterling and Henderson.

Didn't see any Chelsea players do much for England full stop.
Click to expand...

To be fair Emerson did his damnedest to help England, especially during the first half!
 
Not enough defensively to help dominate the midfield, not enough going forward to add any real threat. Was just sort of there.

He is a good player but a really poor selection last night in that setup.
 
He's allowed to have a bad game. I don't think he really stood out in any but was better earlier in the tournament. My issue with Mount (which isn't really his fault) was his status as one of the 'untouchables' when I don't think he'd earned that right yet.

There was no reason to keep him on the pitch for 100 minutes last night, other than trying to keep it tight. I really think it was those negative tactics which cost us. He could've quite easily come off around the 60 minute mark for a more adventurous player.
 
TheReligion said:
Hopefully Southgate will learn from this more than anyone else. He played it safe by bringing on Saka (as he can play wing back) as opposed to the more attacking Sancho and leaving on Mount for far too long (because he tracks back more than Grealish).

If Southgate was not proactive I think England win the game. Saka was the wrong sub when he went 433 and Mount should have been off by the hour mark as he was offering nothing.
Click to expand...

I do feel people are not seeing the game for what it is when criticizing Mount. There were plenty of problems in that game but Mount was the least of them. From someone who watches Mount a lot, here is the issue:

1. Kane playing as a false 9 instead of playing as a proper CF, tying up Bonnucci and Chiellini to allow for more space from Mount to actually do some playmaking. Kane occupies space which Mount typically uses to be effective. That is his game. He was not allowed to do that.

2. No wingers who hug the lines, again to allow and create space for Mount to do actual playmaking. Why was Sterling running down the middle so many times? Because Italy preferred him doing that then Mount or because Southgate gave him such a free role which allowed him to do that? Either way, he is the last player you want in the middle with the ball infront of a stacked Italy defence. You want that to be Mount with Sterling, Kane and Saka infront of him.

3. Mount was CLEARLY used primarily to provide balance for having two deep DMs. He was also used as a decoy when England attacked. He made a lot of dummy runs for Shaw, Kane and Sterling. Basically he sacrificed his game so that they could create.

Now people will go on with their narrative and ignore the points above. But the points remain. If England want to see a more productive Mount, you have to set up a team which allows for that. That means playing wingers who actually play as wingers, and CFs who actually play as CFs.
 
Ibn Battuta said:
I do feel people are not seeing the game for what it is when criticizing Mount. There were plenty of problems in that game but Mount was the least of them. From someone who watches Mount a lot, here is the issue:

1. Kane playing as a false 9 instead of playing as a proper CF, tying up Bonnucci and Chiellini to allow for more space from Mount to actually do some playmaking. Kane occupies space which Mount typically uses to be effective. That is his game. He was not allowed to do that.

2. No wingers who hug the lines, again to allow and create space for Mount to do actual playmaking. Why was Sterling running down the middle so many times? Because Italy preferred him doing that then Mount or because Southgate gave him such a free role which allowed him to do that? Either way, he is the last player you want in the middle with the ball infront of a stacked Italy defence. You want that to be Mount with Sterling, Kane and Saka infront of him.

3. Mount was CLEARLY used primarily to provide balance for having two deep DMs. He was also used as a decoy when England attacked. He made a lot of dummy runs for Shaw, Kane and Sterling. Basically he sacrificed his game so that they could create.

Now people will go on with their narrative and ignore the points above. But the points remain. If England want to see a more productive Mount, you have to set up a team which allows for that. That means playing wingers who actually play as wingers, and CFs who actually play as CFs.
Click to expand...

Your points are fair but I don't see Mount as being good enough to build a team around. Certainly not based on what he's shown during the Euros.

I don't like how Southgate approached it myself and I do think Mount is a great option but other than his workrate I think he's been very disappointing this tournament.
 
————————Kane————————
Grealish———Foden———-Sterling

We should be aiming for this in the next tournament with Rashford, Sancho, Greenwood with the reserve ammo.

With these players we should be up there in the next 3 tournaments over the next 5 years.

The problem with Mount is he’s not Decisive in the attacking areas, he needs to be positioning himself to play in the midfield two, let’s stick to four at the back.

Can’t wait for the winter World Cup!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.