I must admit I’ve never rated him. Always thought he was an average player that doesn’t bring much to the collective, rather moments of individual brilliance.
Maybe it’s also due to the fact that he looks like a french comedian that I dislike now that I come to think of it
But I’m ready to give him a chance and I hope he’ll turn out good for us!
Welcome Mount. I must admit, i wasn’t thrilled with the prospect of signing him but seeing him in our jersey has warmed me more towards his signing. Come on Mase!!!
Maybe I am a bit too old for this, or simply I took a big step back on this icon things but I don"t really care having the 7 for Mount.
Actually it's better for him having it than Sancho or Garnacho.
Sancho is not good enough and is not fulfing his potential so I wouldn't expose him more.
Garnacho seems to be easily distracted so I wouldn't give him that shirt.
Having a midfielder having the 7 kind of ends this idolatry of the 7 at United and won't be compared to Cantona, Becks, Ronaldo or the other flops that had it.
Having given some more thought to the purchase of Mason Mount, I think I have changed my mind quite a bit. My initial reaction to his signing was that we were signing a second player to play in a double pivot or even as a 10 to move Bruno out wide and I didn't like either of those options.
But now I realise there might be another plan. As we saw last season, a lot of teams have started to switch from a midfield triangle to a midfield box. City have been doing it for a while now and this season we have seen a lot of other teams adopt this strategy, most notably Arsenal and Brighton.
Essentially, what many of these teams are doing is moving one of their double pivot players higher up the pitch, effectively becoming a second number 10, and moving one of their defenders from the back four into the double pivot. Often it's one of the FBs, or in City's case, a CB, who takes up the defensive midfield position.
We tried this at times last season, with Eriksen and Fred in particular, while Shaw or Dalot moved into the double pivot. Shaw usually did this when AWB was playing and Dalot when he was playing.
The problem we had was that Eriksen didn't have the legs to play such a demanding role and Fred didn't have the tactical discipline or the skills to be a consistent threat in attack.
Mason Mount solves that problem. His work-rate, ball-playing ability, tactical nous and attacking threat would make him a good candidate to succeed in the role, and if we remember a while back, he was enjoying arguably the best period of his career as the second number 10 in Tuchel's system. If ten Hag really plans to use him in this way, and I think he will, Mason Mount could be a really good player for us.
Maybe I am a bit too old for this, or simply I took a big step back on this icon things but I don"t really care having the 7 for Mount.
Actually it's better for him having it than Sancho or Garnacho.
Sancho is not good enough and is not fulfing his potential so I wouldn't expose him more.
Garnacho seems to be easily distracted so I wouldn't give him that shirt.
Having a midfielder having the 7 kind of ends this idolatry of the 7 at United and won't be compared to Cantona, Becks, Ronaldo or the other flops that had it.
If you think Mount came cause they gave him assurances - sure mate takeover will get done soon, you're naive like a little kid.
How come over the years all those players came to United, despite the Glazers?If You just needed another opportunity to vent down your negativity I guess. Try to mix your posts a bit.
You’re now pathetically trying to shift the goalposts to ‘no one would ever sign for the Glazers’, which isn’t what you or I said.
You stated, clearly, that you ‘don’t think players think about who the owners are at all before moving clubs’, which is an absolutely idiotic assertion.
I didn’t say Mount came because they gave him assurances.
I called your assertion that…
…utter rubbish. Which it is.
You’re now pathetically trying to shift the goalposts to ‘no one would ever sign for the Glazers’, which isn’t what you or I said.
You stated, clearly, that you ‘don’t think players think about who the owners are at all before moving clubs’, which is an absolutely idiotic assertion.
Respond properly to my post or don’t bother replying.
The conversation started by poster claiming Mount probably got assurances that takeover will get sorted. You jumped in the conversation like a parachuter so get your facts right before being all agressive. Nor did I say noone would sign for the Glazers.
You speaking about idiotic posts is a huge irony, absolutely huge.
Better stick to your 'funny' posts about ETH's 83 rules. That was really great.
The conversation started by poster claiming Mount probably got assurances that takeover will get sorted. You jumped in the conversation like a parachuter so get your facts right before being all agressive. Nor did I say noone would sign for the Glazers.
You speaking about idiotic posts is a huge irony, absolutely huge.
Better stick to your 'funny' posts about ETH's 83 rules. That was really great.
He’d be a damn sight better there than Weghorst that’s for sure.
I could see him doing a job there, and I actually really hope ETH does have some kind of maverick plans for him, but that if whatever he tries doesn’t work (wing, false 9 etc), ETH doesn’t persist with it to the detriment of the team.
ETH can be stubborn, as all good managers are tbh.
He’d be a damn sight better there than Weghorst that’s for sure.
I could see him doing a job there, and I actually really hope ETH does have some kind of maverick plans for him, but that if whatever he tries doesn’t work (wing, false 9 etc), ETH doesn’t persist with it to the detriment of the team.
ETH can be stubborn, as all good managers are tbh.
