Chelsea seems like the only club showed serious interest in his service so far.
Moises Caicedo | Chelsea agree £115M fee | signed for Chelsea
- Thread starter davidmichael
- Start date
- Status
It's partly because of those two. If you play with a less conservative and more attacking set up in midfield, that improves attack. For example Mount (who is obviously our first choice #8) clearly adds more to our attack than Caicedo does, with trade-offs in other areas.
As you say you can try to improve other positions to compensate, but the fact that we'd have a more conservative set-up than teams like City and Arsenal should at least prompt people to pause and consider whether this is the best possible route for us to go down.
True. But recent reports have suggested we’re looking at making a move for him. That said with the time we take to prepare a bid they’ll have sealed the deal before we even make an offer.
Oh I totally agree mate. A top class striker is the absolute number one priority.
Yeh its a strange one isnt it?
Mount has the stats i expect of no8 in general. But thats not to say if tifo I R L had more passing metrics for different types of passing that we wouldnt see a different result.
We won’t be getting Caicedo. That much I’m certain of.
Edit. Didn’t see post above.
Edit. Didn’t see post above.
Christ...
Another we should be looking at at that price.
You also needs to do some leg work to sell the project to the player, and convince him Utd's sport project and financial package are better for him than Chelsea.
Regardless of whether personal terms have already been agreed, I’m convinced Chelsea will offer enough to get this one over the line. Then it’ll be just another example of them getting the deal done instead of dicking about like we do so often. If only ETH could time a Forlan-esque interception outside their Cobham training ground.
Hes been saying that
How they are making it out is not what he said.
He said they are yet to meet and discuss a fee and he didn’t make it sound like it was something expected in the near future either.
Agreeing personal terms means nothing.
Yeh we arent buying him at £85mil.
Would be very smart business by Chelsea if they manage to ditch Havertz (£65 million), Mount (£60 million) and Kovacic (£30 million) and end up with Caicedo (£85 million) + £70 million to spare.
Irony that having bought Enzo for £106mil, they need to spend £85mil on Caiciedo to cover the deficencies in Enzo's game. If Enzo is the deep lying play maker (6) and Caicideo is the (8) and his partner in a double pivot, who is Chelseas (10) who will play infront of the pair?
They sell Mount, they will be defintely going back into the market again for a 10 wont they?
Would hate to see him at Chelsea
That spot is for Nkunku, isn't it?
Yep. It’s the easiest part of a transfer.
Nkunku probably.
Caicedo will be due a testimonial at Chelsea by the time we prepare a bid.
Good shout, forgot you signed him.
Yeh id forgot they signed him.
he would be a really strong addition to United's midfield
Showed glimpses against England
Not convinced.
I thought the whole of the US Midfield was more workmanlike than showing genuine quality. Excellent energy but once the games settled down I didn't see any real great passing or creativity. I think a bit more should be required at a club like ours than the narrow skills they showed.
City and Arsenal already have tempo setting, sitting defensive AND attacking midfielders along with a host of recognised centre forward options. We have Bruno, who is a chance creation machine that spam balls literally left, right, centre that plays closer as a 2nd striker AND we have no centre forward.
Adding Mount would improve our attack but helps none of our issues like progressing the ball from the back or midfield control; it's asking an awful lot from him (who played with Kante, Kovacic and Jorginho to do those other midfield roles) and Casemiro to help tie it altogether.
Sometimes less is more. In theory (and at least the hope is that) by adding a player like Caicedo, our base would be so strong that it gives the rest of the team to push on i.e full backs that really go high and forward, which helps creates more overlaps AND helps your Rashford/Sanchos/Antony because there are more players to interplay. It also means they wouldn't need to keep an eye over their shoulder to track back, worrying about getting counter attacked because you have two really responsible and athletic midfielders covering. It means we actually have more players attacking in the opposition half. I'd be very worried about a front four (because that's what we essentially play as) of Rashford/CF/Antony and Bruno trying things and then seeing Mount in those same areas when we lose the ball.
As a single choice, Mount over Caicedo is such a risky move. If they came in tandem and/or we have other midfield targets, then fair enough but that's a whole different discussion. Also Caicedo is being severely underrated with his ability on the ball. It's the 'best' possible route for what we know of as of now and what we know of our current squad players.
Last edited:
that type of industry and workmanlike quality is what Klopp built his midfield around that allows his front three to just attack....nothing wrong with having a workhorse and the kid can make a pass
This midfield still needs
Cover for Casa
Playmaker to progress from deep
CM who can assist and score
No doubt that Mount would fit the criteria for the bottom one,there is a stand out candidate for the middle one but not going there.
So who do people think we can realistically get for the other two. Obviously we won't get all three this summer so it's a case of prioritising which is the most important.
Partly, sure; we're not in disagreement there and there is a big loss in technical roundedness, but again, we go back to the FDJ (or any player of his ilk) conundrum if we expect any one player coming in to be that transformative. We're not suddenly going to play connective and superfluous football with either Mount or Caicedo in the team as a sole signing - we'll still face the same roadblocks when up against highly technical and competent midfields who aren't particularly bothered by athleticism and will have the ball for concerted periods of time.
No doubting whatsoever that it's setting a different tone from the outset in comparison to Arsenal and City, but the problem is - and goes back to what's been mentioned before - they have built their midfields over time with only finishing touches or top ups needed by now. If we're honest, as a fanbase there's a clear divide when it comes to what people even want from a midfield unit with some wanting us to remove every one of them except Casemiro and start it up from scratch, and others angling for Bruno to once again be optimised, whilst others further still, don't even want Bruno in our starting line up! It's not indicative of what the manager wants, but it does tell a story of how disjointed and incohesive our midfield actually is - any one player who can come in and fix it would have to be incredible, undoubtedly one of the world's best; there's a handful of players like that out there who play deep, and none of them are realistic either in terms of viability or our budget, so in the interim we surely have to decide whether we want to work towards being solid and stable or overt and attacking. If Mount indicates the latter, then we need a hell of a lot more players than just him this window or the net result just won't be in the same ball park as Caicedo shoring up our mobility, cover and deeper release issues whilst then working towards better fits around the team in subsequent windows.
For me Mount + another is equivocal to what Caicedo alone potentially brings on the other side of the coin. We're not suddenly going to become a strong attacking unit with Mount alone, but we will suddenly be a much, much harder team to play through or break down with Caicedo alone, before addressing the other issues we have.
But Klopp had two fullbacks racking up major assists/creativity. We don’t.
The main issue for me wrt. the argument that Caicedo turns us into a conservative side whereas Mount doesn't, is that it's almost impossible to see envision a Casemiro-Mount-Bruno midfield being more resilient and solid than Casemiro-Caicedo-Bruno. We might create more with the former, but it isn't dominant or elite enough on the ball that it pins opposition back with enough regularity to compensate for how iffy it would be defensively/in deeper areas. Which is why Mount feels like he would be a great option for depth alongside another midfield signing, but patently we don't have the financial wiggle room for that to happen. So as our only midfield recruit, I think it's reasonable to be a bit concerned with just Mount.
That's why the links to Dumfries, Timber, Frimpong, Vanderson etc all made sense.
Just seeing this. Agree. Think I’ve said similar in my post, but was so tired when making it, I can’t remember.
The first is just not impressive at all to my eye and has serious doubts in terms of ball retention and cohesive play; the latter immediately tells you the opposition are in for a tough day at the office with the variable of Bruno possibly turning the game in a flash. Mount just is not that guy for midfield discussion - you even want him in Bruno’s ideal position rather than alongside him… it’s still a pretty baffling choice of player to go for given our more pressing needs.
Realistically - Caicedo, Lavia (and maybe Milenkovic Savic would be worth checking out again).
- Status