Mason Mount's Many Misfortunes (please don't make another waste of money post)

Overhaul FC said:
You genuinely think a decent season in the Championship means he would be a better right winger than Mount or Greenwood would be? Amad didn't show anything spectacular in his limited time at United either so I wouldn't put him ahead of some of the other contenders for the position.

If after a long time out you feel he's going to come in and be our best right winger immediately then fair play to you, but I disagree.
Click to expand...
He barely played, so saying he didn't show anything is a bit silly.

The one time he got a run out, he scored a great goal which saw us past Milan in the Europa League.

He was also highly rated by Sunderland and was arguably player of the season in the whole division and looked like carrying that form over with us.
 
moses said:
I'm sure I've seen Mount play on the right for England?
Click to expand...

He's played there for Chelsea too.

We play Bruno there so I don't get the difference other than that it would be less of a waste and Mount might be more suited to it.

Although unless Garnacho is completely hopeless on the right I'd try him there, as I don't think you can justify leaving him out with the form Antony and Rashford are in.
 
noodlehair said:
He's played there for Chelsea too.

We play Bruno there so I don't get the difference other than that it would be less of a waste and Mount might be more suited to it.

Although unless Garnacho is completely hopeless on the right I'd try him there, as I don't think you can justify leaving him out with the form Antony and Rashford are in.
Click to expand...

Absolutely
 
Rightnr said:
He barely played, so saying he didn't show anything is a bit silly.

The one time he got a run out, he scored a great goal which saw us past Milan in the Europa League.

He was also highly rated by Sunderland and was arguably player of the season in the whole division and looked like carrying that form over with us.
Click to expand...
I didn't see much of him at Sunderland but he didn't really play as RW there did he?
 
It’s actually quite surprising he’s not tried Mount on the right.
He’s tried Lindelof at left back, Amrabat at left back, Bruno at right wing, Bruno at left wing. He’s tried Weghorst as a number 10 and Eriksen as a false nine.
Maybe he draws the line at Mount right wing though? As it makes a lot more sense than the other decisions. And with ten hag it seems to be the less sense something makes the more likely he is to do it.


Red in STL said:
I didn't see much of him at Sunderland but he didn't really play as RW there did he?
Click to expand...
Yeah amad played rw for Sunderland . Im not sure he’d succeed at United though because of the way we play. Sunderland suited him because he played in a more structured system. Him Roberts and Clarke would all play off each other. At United we don’t have that same fluidity.
 
Ludens the Red said:
It’s actually quite surprising he’s not tried Mount on the right.
He’s tried Lindelof at left back, Amrabat at left back, Bruno at right wing, Bruno at left wing. He’s tried Weghorst as a number 10 and Eriksen as a false nine.
Maybe he draws the line at Mount right wing though? As it makes a lot more sense than the other decisions. And with ten hag it seems to be the less sense something makes the more likely he is to do it.



Yeah amad played rw for Sunderland . Im not sure he’d succeed at United though because of the way we play. Sunderland suited him because he played in a more structured system. Him Roberts and Clarke would all play off each other. At United we don’t have that same fluidity.
Click to expand...
We have zero fluidity TBH!
 
He'll go down as one of the worst signings the club's made.

At £60m and £250k a week we've made a £125m, 5 year committment to a player who can't get in the team after 5 months. Worse! Nobody's even questioning why he isn't in the team. It's just instantly self-evident that he's not even in the conversation. We were playing effectively a Champions League knockout game tonight and this thread is on Page 2 with not a peep of wonderment as to why our new Number 7 wasn't starting.

It's already so bad that it's somehow seen as a basic certainty that an 18 year old with 9 minutes of Premier League football under his belt will return and relegate him even further down the pecking order.
 
Last edited:
The 7 minutes (or however few) plus stoppage time he got today - what's the point? And then have him at the tip of the attack? What's he supposed to do? He's the guy supplying the forwards, so why play him the furthest forward? Another baffling ETH special.
 
noodlehair said:
He's played there for Chelsea too.

We play Bruno there so I don't get the difference other than that it would be less of a waste and Mount might be more suited to it.

Although unless Garnacho is completely hopeless on the right I'd try him there, as I don't think you can justify leaving him out with the form Antony and Rashford are in.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to slight Mount, but he played bad as a winger for Chelsea. The redeeming quality about Mount is his tireless motor. It also gets him out of position throughout the game. As a winger for us, he often disappears for most of the game on attack.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
I am not trying to slight Mount, but he played bad as a winger for Chelsea. The redeeming quality about Mount is his tireless motor. It also gets him out of position throughout the game. As a winger for us, he often disappears for most of the game on attack.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't get why we signed him, and what you've said about is positioning is exactly why its a really terrible idea to play him in midfield or as a second no10, where positional discipline is extremely important.

If either him or Fernandes have to go on the right though, it should be a no brainer. Even if Mount is as ineffective as Bruno there, Bruno is much less ineffective than Mount in the middle.
 
moses said:
I'm sure I've seen Mount play on the right for England?
Click to expand...
And lots for Chelsea. He’s just not good at it. He considers the edge of the box width. He drifts inside to occupy areas other players are trying to maneuver in. It clogs things up.

If you set it up so that you have width from a wingback and the team shape allowed him to be a right attacking midfielder of sorts … maybe? But he also lacks creativity as well. We had an open 10 spot … and that just didn’t suit him either.

He’s just a generally solid, sound player that lacks a definitive role. If you want him to fit well, then you almost have to structure your team shape around him … and he’s not good enough to justify that really.
 
Do you guys remember Mkhitaryan's start here? I think he only played one game in his first few months here, which was the derby, and he was horrible, so he was kinda frozen out by José.

This is even weirder. Our big summer signing who was handed 7 (yes, 7 is an important number here) and he can't even get a start at home to Luton. I'm not even a fan of the guy and I'm itching for him to get a run in the team because ten Hag must have seen something in him. Anything. Our midfield isn't exactly lighting it up.
 
The worst thing is if we really wanted him, he wasn't going anywhere. We could have just got him for a reduced fee soon or for free and it would have made no difference.
 
Ayoba said:
60m for a squad player
Click to expand...
He was bought as an Eriksen replacement, but in this case the replacement isn't yet as good as the one that needs replacing. HEll get his chance and he'll be fine, he just needs a goal and a run of games.
 
Yagami said:
Do you guys remember Mkhitaryan's start here? I think he only played one game in his first few months here, which was the derby, and he was horrible, so he was kinda frozen out by José.

This is even weirder. Our big summer signing who was handed 7 (yes, 7 is an important number here) and he can't even get a start at home to Luton. I'm not even a fan of the guy and I'm itching for him to get a run in the team because ten Hag must have seen something in him. Anything. Our midfield isn't exactly lighting it up.
Click to expand...

I'm not actually convinced ETH saw anything in him. I think we had the vague target of a midfielder, the club got wind of Mount’s availability and desire to join us, and went ahead and signed him with little thought put in to where he'd fit in the team.

I think this is also how we ended up with van de Beek and Fred.
 
One more nail in the coffin of EtH. Shocking transfer that the whole fanbase saw coming, instead of the clown in charge of managing us
 
I look forward to him having a great run of games, and every good performance we swap out one of the words in the title. Until, after we lift the CL, he has come full circle:

Mason Mount mercurial magnificent main man manchester midfielder
 
Every man and his dog knew Mount was a crap signing apart from ETH and our clueless scouting network it seems. Not only this, but there was no foreplanning about how he’d fit into our system.

Chelsea must be besides themselves after taking us to the cleaners for an average Joe with a year left on his contract.
 
It just hasn't worked sadly

I think there's a very good player there but multiple injuries and the fact we have Bruno in his preferred position make it a baffling signing
 
I'd love to find out one day what the actual plan was for Mount. From the second we were linked it was obvious he didn't fit the system.

If you was to build a side around Mount (I'm not suggesting we should) what would it actually look like? I'm guessing a diamond where he could use his engine to shuttle up and down in one of the wide CM slots.
 
Brutal timing for him to get injured again.
Whatever we are doing in training is problematic. This isn't coincidental
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Can anyone explain to me why we signed Mount? Like, what was the thinking behind it?
Click to expand...

P-Nut said:
I'd love to find out one day what the actual plan was for Mount. From the second we were linked it was obvious he didn't fit the system.
Click to expand...
I think the plan was to have the defenders (particularly Shaw and Martinez) to do a significant amount of the playmaking duties and help out the midfield, allowing us to push one more of our midfielders into an attacking position to increase our threat around the opposition box. So while we were in possession we'd be decreasing our defensive line to increase our attacking line, with the midfield balance staying about the same (just done in a different way).

Not saying it's a good plan, but it's the only thing that makes some kind of sense to me.

Shaw only played two games before getting injured, and Martinez only got five games (and in hindsight was still struggling with his injury). Even in that short time it wasn't really working but it was such a small sample size that it's hard to make a definite call, but once those two got injured there was no chance it was going to work. ETH continued trying to play that way for a few more games without them, but more recently he's started playing the second midfielder a little deeper again which is likely why Mount has been more of a sub.

Once Shaw and Martinez return (or even just Shaw since he'll be back first) It'll be interesting to see if ETH tries to go back to playing two very attacking midfielders, and if so whether Mount will come back in as a starter.
 
MadDogg said:
I think the plan was to have the defenders (particularly Shaw and Martinez) to do a significant amount of the playmaking duties and help out the midfield, allowing us to push one more of our midfielders into an attacking position to increase our threat around the opposition box. So while we were in possession we'd be decreasing our defensive line to increase our attacking line, with the midfield balance staying about the same (just done in a different way).

Not saying it's a good plan, but it's the only thing that makes some kind of sense to me.

Shaw only played two games before getting injured, and Martinez only got five games (and in hindsight was still struggling with his injury). Even in that short time it wasn't really working but it was such a small sample size that it's hard to make a definite call, but once those two got injured there was no chance it was going to work. ETH continued trying to play that way for a few more games without them, but more recently he's started playing the second midfielder a little deeper again which is likely why Mount has been more of a sub.

Once Shaw and Martinez return (or even just Shaw since he'll be back first) It'll be interesting to see if ETH tries to go back to playing two very attacking midfielders, and if so whether Mount will come back in as a starter.
Click to expand...

Yeah I had another think about it after posting that, and I think the plan was the box midfield that everyone is so in favour of at the moment.

But as you say I still don't think that suits us at all as who is the player to step into the midfield and become the 2nd #6 next to Casemiro? Martinez stepping up leaves a back line of Shaw-Varane-AWB. That severely hampers Shaws game and link up with Marcus, and conversely if it was to be Shaw stepping in to midfield we lose his overlapping runs.

The side that made everyone else want to play that way was City, who regularly fielded 4 CBs across the back line leaving a normal 3 CB at the back when Stones stepped into midfield. They are also a complete possession based side, something we can't ever be with Rashford and Bruno in the side.

Sorry this became so long, basically to say that even with everyone playing as they did last season there are still major issues with that tactical set up if that's what we were aiming for
 
Unmitigated disaster of a transfer, and the worst thing is pretty much everyone outside the club saw it coming.
 
Rood said:
He was supposed to be an upgrade on Eriksen and cover for Bruno

It's not so crazy but obviously hasn't worked out for various reasons
Click to expand...
I get the Bruno cover bit but it’s a lot of money to cover a player that plays 90 practically every game.

He doesn’t play the same position as Eriksen though.
 
We signed this guy when we didn’t need him and he’s also injury prone as feck. What were we thinking here? Probably the worst transfer I can remember in a long time.
 
If we had gotten him on a free then fine, he's not a bad player.
But giving him no 7 on top of it all is just sad.
 
pascell said:
I saw it coming too. I hope whoever Ratcliffe brings in as DoF doesn't allow ten Hag to sign who he wants.
Click to expand...

I refuse to believe Mount was 'who he wants' after his time in Ajax and chasing Frenkie De Jong all last summer. More likely the board said sorry mate you can't have that fancy French or Italian wine you asked for but here's some English champagne. It's won awards you know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.