Noussair Mazraoui | has signed for United

Status
Not open for further replies.
This just feels like Wan B is asking for too much or wants to go for first team football and we got a Ten Haag approved replacement for a similar fee. Its neither here not there.
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It’s a signing for depth clearly.


Misses what, 18 games a season on average over the past 5 years and is being brought in as a back up full back.
Sounds fine enough to me, we play 50 games or so on average so if he’s available for 32 as a back up…
Click to expand...
It doesn't work like that. First average doesn't guarantee he will miss 18 games. it might be 40 it might be 10. You don't know. Then you don't know when he will miss those games. Will his injuries coincide with Dalot or will he miraculously be fit every time Dalot is injured. Obviously you have the same problem with every player because they all have injuries but an injury prone player has a much higher odds of not being available when you need them.

We now have Mazraoui, Shaw and Malacia that we can't rely on over a season. I would bin them all even Shaw. What's the point of them
 
Kaos said:
Amad was a solskjaer signing and Garna came through the academy. Otherwise yes, I feel like the Ten Hag only signing Ajax players meme has been done to death.
Click to expand...
Garnacho was signed from Atletico, due to our scouting. Amad was another scouting choice, whoever the manager was. Which is the posters point.
 
Earth Wind and McGuire said:

SeasonDaysInjuriesGames missed
23/2496 days519
22/2372 days312
21/2256 days411
20/21107 days431
19/2049 days416
18/1921 days27
L17/1821 days14

Awesome, between him and Shaw we maybe only need one other injury stricken LB to get us through the season. Good business….
Click to expand...

Is there a breakdown of impact type injuries vs muscle/strain

Not alot you can do about impacts especially as a defender
 
Feels like we'll see Mazraoui at left back far more than right back. Dalot probably the fittest most durable player in our squad, certainly up there with Bruno and a consistent performer. Hopefully he's a better player than Alex Telles before him as from what I gather he also isn't the most athletic and slow to get back, which is a concern
 
Cutch said:
Feels like we'll see Mazraoui at left back far more than right back. Dalot probably the fittest most durable player in our squad, certainly up there with Bruno and a consistent performer. Hopefully he's a better player than Alex Telles before him as from what I gather he also isn't the most athletic and slow to get back, which is a concern
Click to expand...
He’s nothing like Telles, he’s a good sprinter and dynamic. People are pointing out to positional errors, but I think that’s also being over exaggerated.
 
Rams said:
He’s nothing like Telles, he’s a good sprinter and dynamic. People are pointing out to positional errors, but I think that’s also being over exaggerated.
Click to expand...
I think he’s a good player, very useful going forward but I have concerns over his injury and his personality
 
VP89 said:
Who cares about the past 5 years? If he missed a lot recently that's more worrying. What were the injuries? Was it something recurring all of a sudden? There has to be a decay factor in analysing historically otherwise it's a statistical bias.
Click to expand...

The past 2 years actually looks better than the 5 so….

The past year alone looks bad.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
The past 2 years actually looks better than the 5 so….

The past year alone looks bad.
Click to expand...
Even then, not really relevant if the injuries that are concerning / recurring were last season.

This is why I would rather dive into De Ligt and also Mazraouis injuries last year than look beyond that. They both missed longer periods of the season and I'm unsure if they are due to recurring injuries of the same or similar type or bad luck.
 
VP89 said:
Even then, not really relevant if the injuries that are concerning / recurring were last season.

This is why I would rather dive into De Ligt and also Mazraouis injuries last year than look beyond that. They both missed longer periods of the season and I'm unsure if they are due to recurring injuries of the same or similar type or bad luck.
Click to expand...

Taking one season and applying it as the norm is just daft though, Martinez for example has spent most of his career injury free, so it’s likely he won’t be missing such a huge part of the season again. Luke Shaw though….
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Taking one season and applying it as the norm is just daft though, Martinez for example has spent most of his career injury free, so it’s likely he won’t be missing such a huge part of the season again. Luke Shaw though….
Click to expand...
Im not applying it as the norm. It's a worry going into next season. Licha is also going to be a worry.

Also - what was Mazraouis availability the season prior to last? I can see 61 days (10 games) missed due to inflammation, not ideal there either.
 
WouterWeghorst said:
Dumfries hasn’t played a back four in years, has he? His stature is fully based on a wing back in a back 5 system. Would struggle much more to adapt.

Mazraoui is plug and play. He knows exactly what to do in Erik’s system which is not to be said of about half of the squad still after two years..
Click to expand...
Given almost half the squad was bought by/for EtH, this is a damning indictment of this transfer policy & his tenure.
 
Varun1 said:
Given almost half the squad was bought by/for EtH, this is a damning indictment of this transfer policy & his tenure.
Click to expand...
Most starters last season where not signed by/for EtH so no, it’s not a damning indication. Even last season, the few games where most people where fit, United played OK at least. Last couple of games of the season, small patch in the Jan/feb? Most of the season too many players were missing.
 
VP89 said:
Im not applying it as the norm. It's a worry going into next season. Licha is also going to be a worry.

Also - what was Mazraouis availability the season prior to last? I can see 61 days (10 games) missed due to inflammation, not ideal there either.
Click to expand...

10 games is pretty standard for most players over a 50 games season.
 
WouterWeghorst said:
Most starters last season where not signed by/for EtH so no, it’s not a damning indication. Even last season, the few games where most people where fit, United played OK at least. Last couple of games of the season, small patch in the Jan/feb? Most of the season too many players were missing.
Click to expand...
According to some reports his training methods didn't help the squad's injuries. Of the players that were bought under his management and that were available last season, few (none?) really shone.

Some will say the team was so dysfunctional because of injuries, so those players didn't get a chance to really deliver but I don't really buy this. Good managers have shown that they don't need a new set of first 11.
 
Last edited:
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
10 games is pretty standard for most players over a 50 games season.
Click to expand...
I think it's 12 or so. For something innocious as inflammation. Then a jump to 19?

Yeah, it's a worry. Bayern fans had the same issue with him. Good but got hurt whenever he started putting games together.
 
VP89 said:
I think it's 12 or so. For something innocious as inflammation. Then a jump to 19?

Yeah, it's a worry. Bayern fans had the same issue with him. Good but got hurt whenever he started putting games together.
Click to expand...
Did he go to Bayern as a starter ? Kimmich got moved to midfield around the same time didn’t he ? If Dalot is starting hopefully Mazraoui won’t pick up as many injuries.
 
I hope extra attention is paid during the medical. I don't really feel this signing, to be honest.
 
davidmichael said:
Did he go to Bayern as a starter ? Kimmich got moved to midfield around the same time didn’t he ? If Dalot is starting hopefully Mazraoui won’t pick up as many injuries.
Click to expand...
A bayern fan can opine better but I think it was his injuries that stopped him from cementing himself as a starter.
 
Yoro99 said:
Surprise surprise he has played under ETH it’s criminal what is going on at this club.

ETH is setting us back years and years with his signings. Anthony, Mount, Malacia, and idk who tf else. Just one look at this guys injury record tells us all we need to know.

More wasted money. How is ETH getting away with this? Why is it being allowed to happen, it’s disgusting. Where is Ashworth? Berrada? This needs stopping.

We don’t even need RB, just keep AWB, we need LB a lot more.

Looking forward to coming back to this post in 6 months time, when Mazraoui is injured & having done f all for us and we all questioning why we signed him.
Click to expand...
Mount played for ETH? Mount clearly a club signing as he was a sort after England international. Hence why ETH then insisted we signed Amrabat on loan and no clear plan for Mount in the side.
 
Cassidy said:
Mount played for ETH? Mount clearly a club signing as he was a sort after England international. Hence why ETH then insisted we signed Amrabat on loan and no clear plan for Mount in the side.
Click to expand...
Mount was one of the more obvious manager signings we've had. ETH had wanted to sign him previously, and it was him deciding to change his tactics and formation which then created a spot for Mount in the side. So I'm not sure what you mean there was no clear plan when he was obviously intended to play in the second attacking midfield role that ETH used last season. It's just that a slow start led to McTominay moving ahead of him in the short-term, then injury destroyed the rest of his season and McTominay then later Mainoo took that spot.

The only reason Mount made sense was because ETH wanted to change his tactics, so the club gave him the player he wanted to make it work.
 
MadDogg said:
Mount was one of the more obvious manager signings we've had. ETH had wanted to sign him previously, and it was him deciding to change his tactics and formation which then created a spot for Mount in the side. So I'm not sure what you mean there was no clear plan when he was obviously intended to play in the second attacking midfield role that ETH used last season. It's just that a slow start led to McTominay moving ahead of him in the short-term, then injury destroyed the rest of his season and McTominay then later Mainoo took that spot.

The only reason Mount made sense was because ETH wanted to change his tactics, so the club gave him the player he wanted to make it work.
Click to expand...

Which spot did he create for Mount with a change of tactic?

Mount when fit last season mainly sat on the bench and did not feature. The player who was obviously coming into midfield was Mainoo during preseason

Not only that the club was briefing Mount and Hojlund were club recruitment signigs made after giving greater control to the recruitment team after the error of Antony
 
Varun1 said:
According to some reports his training methods didn't help the squad's injuries. Of the players that were bought under his management and that were available last season, few (none?) really shone.

Some will say the team was so dysfunctional because of injuries, so those players didn't get a chance to really deliver but I don't really buy this. Good managers have shown that they don't need a new set of first 11.
Click to expand...

Not sure how a player falling on Martinez in a match and Mainoo in a pre season match to injure them counts as being a result of his training methods... Apart from that the majority of players who were injured last season have always gone through patches of being injury prone. Also I find this disconnect from some sections of the fans and what Ten Hag is trying to do weird. The majority of the fan base has been crying out for us to become a high pressing, aggresive team. This requires reconditioning the team and certain types of training to be able to get them to do it. More intensity in our play should also mean more intensity in training. If Ten Hag's training methods highlights the players who physically can't do it then we should welcome that as an opportunity to highlight those players and replace them. The likes of Bruno, Garnacho, Kobbie, Dalot all seemed fine with the training. Shock surprise its the likes of Shaw and Varane who struggled to stay fit.

And good managers like Pep have shown that even when inheriting a good city squad that he still needed to overhaul it. Klopp has shown that when he gets a few injuries his pool team can struggle to make top 4. So plenty of great manager have shown the complete opposite of what you stated.
 
Cassidy said:
Which spot did he create for Mount with a change of tactic?

Mount when fit last season mainly sat on the bench and did not feature. The player who was obviously coming into midfield was Mainoo during preseason

Not only that the club was briefing Mount and Hojlund were club recruitment signigs made after giving greater control to the recruitment team after the error of Antony
Click to expand...

He was bought for the 'Mainoo spot' and cover for other positions.

I think that the lack of development in playing proactive football (in part due to injuries at the back meaning we're vulnerable in defensive transitions due to inability to consistently win duels and lack of quality in build up play) has meant the strategy of pushing the 8 higher up the pitch hasn't really shown itself much yet
 
Cassidy said:
Mount played for ETH? Mount clearly a club signing as he was a sort after England international. Hence why ETH then insisted we signed Amrabat on loan and no clear plan for Mount in the side.
Click to expand...
So why were we told all last summer that ETH was obsessed with signing Mount?
 
Drainy said:
He was bought for the 'Mainoo spot' and cover for other positions.

I think that the lack of development in playing proactive football (in part due to injuries at the back meaning we're vulnerable in defensive transitions due to inability to consistently win duels and lack of quality in build up play) has meant the strategy of pushing the 8 higher up the pitch hasn't really shown itself much yet
Click to expand...

So he didnt create a starting 11 position for him. Mainoo was always going to start the season. Mount in ETHs eye was an ok signing to provide cover he was a club priority which is why we paid big money and signed him first. ETH reportedly wanted Rice this is documented by the Athletic. There is a reason Murtough and co are not here any longer and ETH is and we as a club are STILL prioritising midfield this summer.

Also remember when Mount was being pursued the club said he was a unique market opportunity and given the number 7 club marquee signing
 
Last edited:
Garethw said:
So why were we told all last summer that ETH was obsessed with signing Mount?
Click to expand...
By who? People put 2 and 2 together because he played for Vitesse. Maybe you need to read the Athletic article that breaks down last summer.

ETHs usage of Mount last season was the clearest indication he didnt see him as a priority.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
It’s a signing for depth clearly.


Misses what, 18 games a season on average over the past 5 years and is being brought in as a back up full back.
Sounds fine enough to me, we play 50 games or so on average so if he’s available for 32 as a back up…
Click to expand...
Idea of first 11 player is, even he may get injured, when available he can have a great impact in the games he plays.

Idea of backup of first 11 is, even he is comparatively not as good as first 11, he should be available for selection when first 11 gets injured.
 
Pronewbie said:
It's problematic playing an 8 who dislikes having the ball played to feet or on the half turn during the build up, especially when the 6 isn't very press resistant. He needs to adapt his game as he's certainly not a false 9, CF or better than Bruno. His best bet is at 8 since Mainoo is still young, or maybe as RW.
Click to expand...

I think Collyer in preseason is showing how he expects Mount to work in the build up

Movement, popping the ball into defence and fullbacks, occasionally run with the ball get up and support the attack when you are in ascendancy while the 6 is in the rest defence. Obviously Mount is a more productive player than Collyer usually (hopefully again)

Mounts flexibility was just an additional plus.
 
Cassidy said:
Which spot did he create for Mount with a change of tactic?

Mount when fit last season mainly sat on the bench and did not feature. The player who was obviously coming into midfield was Mainoo during preseason

Not only that the club was briefing Mount and Hojlund were club recruitment signigs made after giving greater control to the recruitment team after the error of Antony
Click to expand...
We changed to a 4141 last season, with our 2nd midfielder pushing up alongside Bruno instead of sitting deeper closer to Casemiro. Mount was clearly bought primarily for that role, while also being able to cover other spots as well.

Mount started the season playing that position but struggled to get going in his first couple of games (perhaps due to just coming back from the injury), then almost immediately got injured for a month. He came back from that straight into the starting line-up again but continued to struggle. McTominay had scored a couple of goals during that time so Mount was dropped to the bench for a few games, then got injured again and missed most of the season. By the time he came back Mainoo was fully cemented as the starter, McTominay was still being a somewhat effective box-crasher and Mount didn't show anything in his few games (before getting injured yet again) to get ahead of them.

Mainoo was always intended to play a decent amount last season, but ETH would never have expected him to play as much as he did. McTominay was expected to be sold. So we would have primarily had Bruno, Mount and Mainoo for those two roles, with Casemiro and a DM (which ended up being Amrabat) for the deeper role.
 
MadDogg said:
We changed to a 4141 last season, with our 2nd midfielder pushing up alongside Bruno instead of sitting deeper closer to Casemiro. Mount was clearly bought primarily for that role, while also being able to cover other spots as well.

Mount started the season playing that position but struggled to get going in his first couple of games (perhaps due to just coming back from the injury), then almost immediately got injured for a month. He came back from that straight into the starting line-up again but continued to struggle. McTominay had scored a couple of goals during that time so Mount was dropped to the bench for a few games, then got injured again and missed most of the season. By the time he came back Mainoo was fully cemented as the starter, McTominay was still being a somewhat effective box-crasher and Mount didn't show anything in his few games (before getting injured yet again) to get ahead of them.

Mainoo was always intended to play a decent amount last season, but ETH would never have expected him to play as much as he did. McTominay was expected to be sold. So we would have primarily had Bruno, Mount and Mainoo for those two roles, with Casemiro and a DM (which ended up being Amrabat) for the deeper role.
Click to expand...
He started because Mainoo was injured. ETH pretty much said Mainoo was a starter and we all knew it from preseason.

ETH made room for Mount yes (he allowed the signing after all) but the midfield was always going to include Mainoo which is why Mount player wide at times in pre season


When both Mainoo and Mount were fit Mainoo always started ahead.
 
Cassidy said:
He started because Mainoo was injured. ETH pretty much said Mainoo was a starter and we all knew it from preseason.

ETH made room for Mount yes (he allowed the signing after all) but the formation change was not for him it was for Mainoo and because we needed to be more attacking.

When both Mainoo and Mount were fit Mainoo always started ahead.
Click to expand...
Because by that point Mainoo had already cemented his spot while Mount was struggling a lot. We also didn't change the formation for any player, we changed formation then signed a player suited to that. Indeed, I would also say that the formation change made much more sense for Mount rather than Mainoo, who would probably be better in a more normal midfield system. Something that we seem to be moving back to this season, so I guess we'll see.

I just went and re-read the Athletic article you have mentioned a couple of times, and it basically says the same thing. That ETH had been tracking Mount for years and was desperate for an attacking 8 who could also do a defensive job, and that he saw Mount as being perfect for the role. The clubs recruitment department had backed that view, so the club tried to get it done as early as possible (with ETH also having a face-to-face meeting with him to show how much he was wanted).

Hence why we signed him so relatively early in the window, as he was literally ETH's highest priority and seen as vital for how he wanted to play. You are now talking in hindsight using the fact he didn't start that often, while ignoring the fact he basically couldn't play more than four games in a row without getting reinjured and was playing poorly in those few games as the reasons why that happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.