[Shark]

The issue with Hojlund isn’t the goals for me. The biggest problem with him is the number of games he’s a complete ghost. It’s one of the reasons I hate the overuse of stats.

I always point to Lukaku’s first season here. He scored 27 goals which is a very respectable goal tally but there were many, myself included that weren’t moved by the number.

If a player plays 50 games a season and does absolutely nothing in 30 games, whether they score 20 in the remaining 20 games is of no use to me. The damage has been done in the games where they couldn’t make any impact. You’d even prefer if he was like Jackson and Nunez where they make things happen but can’t finish, Hojlund is just a complete ghost in most games.

Hojlund scored 16 in his first season and Martial only scored one more in his . You’ll notice there is a massive difference in how both were viewed after their first seasons.

You can't compare a seasoned PL striker at the time in his "prime" with a young striker playing his first season in the league, that's the issue. Pointing to that is ridiculous.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

Maybe this will cheer you up

Thank you.

These videos should always be taken with a grain of salt, but in this case most of it is from his season here. And we all know how little help he’s had from his teammates and the system we’ve mostly played. In that context it’s beyond me how anyone can watch that video and think “nah, not enough potential”. Really strange.

 

[Rozay]

The issue with Hojlund isn’t the goals for me. The biggest problem with him is the number of games he’s a complete ghost. It’s one of the reasons I hate the overuse of stats.

I always point to Lukaku’s first season here. He scored 27 goals which is a very respectable goal tally but there were many, myself included that weren’t moved by the number.

If a player plays 50 games a season and does absolutely nothing in 30 games, whether they score 20 in the remaining 20 games is of no use to me. The damage has been done in the games where they couldn’t make any impact. You’d even prefer if he was like Jackson and Nunez where they make things happen but can’t finish, Hojlund is just a complete ghost in most games.

Hojlund scored 16 in his first season and Martial only scored one more in his . You’ll notice there is a massive difference in how both were viewed after their first seasons.

Preach brother.

I’ve said the same many times. I’d much rather he missed more chances, I’m not that fussed about the goal tally at this point.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

Preach brother.

I’ve said the same many times. I’d much rather he missed more chances, I’m not that fussed about the goal tally at this point.

Yes, but why ignore the fact that he’s asked to play a position in a system that doesn’t allow him to get more involved? As long as we don’t create opportunities and mostly play him when he has two defenders on his back we don’t get the most out of him. In the video you can see what he can do when he gets a little space.

 

[Bobski]

He didn't get very involved for Denmark either, was that a system issue as well?

Always need to be wary of blaming other players for the performances of another as Rashford and Garnacho could also easily say that Hojlund was not the ideal striker for their skill-set either.

They all need to improve and work better as a group.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Hojlund scored 16 in his first season and Martial only scored one more in his . You’ll notice there is a massive difference in how both were viewed after their first seasons.

Lizzo meme. Bloody haters

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Hojlund scored 16 in his first season and Martial only scored one more in his . You’ll notice there is a massive difference in how both were viewed after their first seasons.

That last sentence is spot on. Despite their almost identical goal tally, Martial got basically no criticism at all after his first season. Instead, everyone was extremely excited about his potential. Which couldn’t be more different to the widespread criticism Hojlund is getting.

That is the point you’re making, right?

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

He didn't get very involved for Denmark either, was that a system issue as well?

Always need to be wary of blaming other players for the performances of another as Rashford and Garnacho could also easily say that Hojlund was not the ideal striker for their skill-set either.

They all need to improve and work better as a group.

I don’t blame other players. I point out that we haven’t exactly been clicking as a team this season so it does not make much sense to blame our young new striker for not being involved that much. Especially as to some it seems to overshadow what he already has and, more importantly, probably will contribute with the coming seasons.
There simply are very, very few young strikers with his skill set and mentality. We need to keep him and make better use of his strengths while he develops into a complete striker, hopefully in a year or two, and preferably with a seasoned striker to learn from.

 

[Doracle]

There simply are very, very few young strikers with his skill set and mentality.

But is that not because teams aren’t looking for those more limited skillsets? Yes, having pace and being able to finish can still get you quite a long way in the game but the top teams are looking for someone special. Excellent first touch, the ability to bring others into play, pick out a pass and generally be one of the most technically gifted players on the pitch are what is required from a top number 9 nowadays.

As yet, I see Højlund as a lot closer to Lukaku than Kane. I wouldn’t expect Madrid, for example, to go anywhere near a Højlund style player.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

But is that not because teams aren’t looking for those more limited skillsets? Yes, having pace and being able to finish can still get you quite a long way in the game but the top teams are looking for someone special. Excellent first touch, the ability to bring others into play, pick out a pass and generally be one of the most technically gifted players on the pitch are what is required from a top number 9 nowadays.

As yet, I see Højlund as a lot closer to Lukaku than Kane. I wouldn’t expect Madrid, for example, to go anywhere near a Højlund style player.

First touch can be worked on, but Hojlund does have a very good eye for his teammates - don’t know how you got the opposite impression? I don’t recall a bad pass from him, but many very good ones including a back heel pass that put Garnacho 1v1 with the keeper. He is quite versatile, can shoot with both feet, very quick, can dribble well for a big player and always has a positive attitude. He’s shown all that for us which you can see from the compilation posted in this thread as well.
It’s ludicrous to compare him with Lukaku.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

He didn't get very involved for Denmark either, was that a system issue as well?

Btw, how well do you think Kane has played for England in this tournament - does that mean he’s suddenly a bad player or might it be the system?
It’s ridiculous to use four matches as an argument for anything.

 

[D. Grayson]

First touch can be worked on, but Hojlund does have a very good eye for his teammates - don’t know how you got the opposite impression? I don’t recall a bad pass from him, but many very good ones including a back heel pass that put Garnacho 1v1 with the keeper. He is quite versatile, can shoot with both feet, very quick, can dribble well for a big player and always has a positive attitude. He’s shown all that for us which you can see from the compilation posted in this thread as well.
It’s ludicrous to compare him with Lukaku.

Stat gives the impression, compared to his frontline teammates his on-the-ball involvement stats aren't great:

Progressive Passes:
Rashford: 65
Garnacho: 62
Højlund: 33

Progressive Carries:
Garnacho: 178
Rashford: 95
Højlund: 36

Progressive Passes Received:
Garnacho: 281
Rashford: 184
Højlund: 111

His stats are that of a poacher with limited involvement in the build-up play.

 

[Bobski]

Btw, how well do you think Kane has played for England in this tournament - does that mean he’s suddenly a bad player or might it be the system?
It’s ridiculous to use four matches as an argument for anything.

He has been shit, like most attacking players in this tournament. However despite it being a small sample size there was nothing inherently different about Hojlund for Denmark than for Utd, same erratic touch, same struggle to get involved, same mix of decent hold up play and poor hold up play.

Hojlund has to prove he is the level needed, until he does there will be doubt, it is perfectly normal.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

Stat gives the impression, compared to his frontline teammates his on-the-ball involvement stats aren't great:

Progressive Passes:
Rashford: 65
Garnacho: 62
Højlund: 33

Progressive Carries:
Garnacho: 178
Rashford: 95
Højlund: 36

Progressive Passes Received:
Garnacho: 281
Rashford: 184
Højlund: 111

His stats are that of a poacher with limited involvement in the build-up play.

Yes, he hasn’t been involved enough. We’re discussing the cause for it and your stats could indicate that our wingers receive the ball much more often and in positions that allow them to use it. When Hojlund gets it he usually has two defenders up his arse and yet his pass completion percentage is better than most forwards.

 

[D. Grayson]

Yes, he hasn’t been involved enough. We’re discussing the cause for it and your stats could indicate that our wingers receive the ball much more often and in positions that allow them to use it. When Hojlund gets it he usually has two defenders up his arse and yet his pass completion percentage is better than most forwards.

His progressive passes and carries numbers are about the same during his time at Atalanta, the facts are the kid is quick, he is built like a truck, and he has an eye for goal but he is technically weak and ill-suited to playing with players like Garnacho, Rashford, and Bruno.

 

[sebsheep]

Stat gives the impression, compared to his frontline teammates his on-the-ball involvement stats aren't great:

Progressive Passes:
Rashford: 65
Garnacho: 62
Højlund: 33

Progressive Carries:
Garnacho: 178
Rashford: 95
Højlund: 36

Progressive Passes Received:
Garnacho: 281
Rashford: 184
Højlund: 111

His stats are that of a poacher with limited involvement in the build-up play.

You know they're not playing the same position or role right?

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

He has been shit, like most attacking players in this tournament. However despite it being a small sample size there was nothing inherently different about Hojlund for Denmark than for Utd, same erratic touch, same struggle to get involved, same mix of decent hold up play and poor hold up play.

Hojlund has to prove he is the level needed, until he does there will be doubt, it is perfectly normal.

Of course he does, but I don’t agree that goals are his only contribution. Young players are usually inconsistent, but he hasn’t even had a well functioning team around him to be able to show consistency. What he has shown is a very high top level all round and impressive mentality for a young player under insane expectations.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

His progressive passes and carries numbers are about the same during his time at Atalanta, the facts are the kid is quick, he is built like a truck, and he has an eye for goal but he is technically weak and ill-suited to playing with players like Garnacho, Rashford, and Bruno.

No, that’s not “facts” but your impression. Having followed him very closely since Atalanta I think it’s wrong. He is far from technically weak or he wouldn’t be able to pull off the things he occasionally does (for example when he got past Van de Ven in the video). One of the most challenging skills in football is receiving a hard pass with you back to goal under intense pressure. Most center forwards can’t do that well until their mid-late twenties and Hojlund is quite good at it. He needs to improve and he will, but for his age he’s very good at it - but many fans only remember the times he loses the ball, not when he succeeds. It’s no coincidence that Saliba had a very hard time in Hojlunds first game vs Arsenal for example. If he was just a big lump he would be straight forward to defend against. It’s the combination of size, speed and skills ball skills that sets him apart - and had he been an understudy to an experienced cf this season coming off the bench more instead of starting every game and carrying the weight all alone everyone would be praising him.

 

[D. Grayson]

No, that’s not “facts” but your impression. Having followed him very closely since Atalanta I think it’s wrong. He is far from technically weak or he wouldn’t be able to pull off the things he occasionally does (for example when he got past Van de Ven in the video). One of the most challenging skills in football is receiving a hard pass with you back to goal under intense pressure. Most center forwards can’t do that well until their mid-late twenties and Hojlund is quite good at it. He needs to improve and he will, but for his age he’s very good at it - but many fans only remember the times he loses the ball, not when he succeeds. It’s no coincidence that Saliba had a very hard time in Hojlunds first game vs Arsenal for example. If he was just a big lump he would be straight forward to defend against. It’s the combination of size, speed and skills ball skills that sets him apart - and had he been an understudy to an experienced cf this season coming off the bench more instead of starting every game and carrying the weight all alone everyone would be praising him.

The numbers don't lie. They don't have biases. Most season-long metrics indicate that Rasmus struggles with the technical aspect of the game. I could create a 5-minute video that makes McTominay look like Bryan Robson, but the underlying numbers will prove that it's not true. Many players have had bad games against the likes of Lukaku, so your point about it showing an implied technical proficiency is not the proof you think it is.

You know they're not playing the same position or role right?

The team has performed better when the center forward is involved in the build-up play. I don't believe Rasmus has the technical ability to do so. The stats I provided support my case.

 

[sebsheep]

The numbers don't lie. They don't have biases. Most season-long metrics indicate that Rasmus struggles with the technical aspect of the game. I could create a 5-minute video that makes McTominay look like Bryan Robson, but the underlying numbers will prove that it's not true. Many players have had bad games against the likes of Lukaku, so your point about it showing an implied technical proficiency is not the proof you think it is.



The team has performed better when the center forward is involved in the build-up play. I don't believe Rasmus has the technical ability to do so. The stats I provided support my case.

How do the stats support your case? You haven't compared him with center forwards involved in the build up play. You've compared him with wingers/wide forwards. You haven't even compared the team with a center forward getting involved vs the team with Hojlund in it.

 

[selsto]

He's looked fatigued this tournament. I do believe a rest and a good preseason, and the help of RvN, will make him a very good striker for us for years to come.
Without comparing their quality, van Persie wasn't always very involved in games either.

 

[D. Grayson]

How do the stats support your case? You haven't compared him with center forwards involved in the build up play. You've compared him with wingers/wide forwards. You haven't even compared the team with a center forward getting involved vs the team with Hojlund in it.

Carlton Morris, Kai Havertz, Ollie Watkins, Nicolas Jackson, Alexander Isak, João Pedro, Dominic Solanke, Matheus Cunha, Bryan Mbeumo, and even Darwin Núñez all have better numbers than Rasmus when it comes to buildup play involvement last season.

 

[sebsheep]

Carlton Morris, Kai Havertz, Ollie Watkins, Nicolas Jackson, Alexander Isak, João Pedro, Dominic Solanke, Matheus Cunha, Bryan Mbeumo, and even Darwin Núñez all have better numbers than Rasmus when it comes to buildup play involvement last season.

Okay, but how does that relate to United playing better with a center forward involved in the build up?

It you want to analyse against other CFs you will have to take into account the playing styles of those teams.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

The numbers don't lie. They don't have biases

I’m sorry to sound condescending but you ought to take a course in applied statistics.

 

[D. Grayson]

Okay, but how does that relate to United playing better with a center forward involved in the build up?

It you want to analyse against other CFs you will have to take into account the playing styles of those teams.

In recent history, Manchester United has performed better in the league and scored more goals when Martial has been a regular part of the team. This suggests that the team, especially Bruno and Rashford, function better with a center forward who actively participates in the build-up play. In youth-level matches, Garnacho performed well with McNeill, who played as a false nine but struggled to connect with Hugill, who is a traditional poacher. Looking at historical evidence, it is clear that attacking plays are more likely to be successful with a center forward who is comfortable on the ball.

I’m sorry to sound condescending but you ought to take a course in applied statistics.

Sure thing, Nate Silver. Just to clarify, people often apply biases to statistics to fit their narrative, but the actual numbers don't lie. My evaluation of the player is based on watching him play and is backed by the underlying numbers. In contrast, your evaluation seems to be based solely on your opinion with little evidence to support it.

 

[Schmeichels pinky]

Just to clarify, people often apply biases to statistics to fit their narrative, but the actual numbers don't lie. My evaluation of the player is based on watching him play and is backed by the underlying numbers. In contrast, your evaluation seems to be based solely on your opinion with little evidence to support it.

The debate is about whether Hojlunds lack of ability or the system is the main reason for him not being involved enough. Non of the stats you’ve posed shed any light on the reason so no, you haven’t backed your allegedly very objective opinion up with numbers. You’ve tried, I’ll give you that.
Now, if you can find a stat that shows he’s not in playable positions or that he loses the ball more often than he should at his age at this level - then you’d have a better case even though statistics will never be the whole truth.

 

[sebsheep]

In recent history, Manchester United has performed better in the league and scored more goals when Martial has been a regular part of the team. This suggests that the team, especially Bruno and Rashford, function better with a center forward who actively participates in the build-up play. In youth-level matches, Garnacho performed well with McNeill, who played as a false nine but struggled to connect with Hugill, who is a traditional poacher. Looking at historical evidence, it is clear that attacking plays are more likely to be successful with a center forward who is comfortable on the ball.

They also scored more goals before Garnacho played so much, and before Mainoo was in the team. Are they the reason?
You've got different players under different managers playing different ways in different with big changes in form. It's not as easy as looking at a couple of stats and saying it's because Hojlund doesn't get involved in the build up.

 

[D. Grayson]

The debate is about whether Hojlunds lack of ability or the system is the main reason for him not being involved enough. Non of the stats you’ve posed shed any light on the reason so no, you haven’t backed your allegedly very objective opinion up with numbers. You’ve tried, I’ll give you that.
Now, if you can find a stat that shows he’s not in playable positions or that he loses the ball more often than he should at his age at this level - then you’d have a better case even though statistics will never be the whole truth.

Stats show United played better and were more successful in the last few seasons when the number 9 gets involved in the build-up play, I provided data over 2 seasons for 2 different teams which shows our current number nine is not good enough to get involved in the build-up play.

I have presented ample evidence to support my assessment. Relying solely on the "eye test" and your argument that he has the necessary skills to succeed at Unite presupposes that the person making the judgment is unbiased and accurate. "trust me, he's good because I've seen him do a sick flick and get past Saliba that one time" is much weaker proof than the information I have provided. I want the kid to succeed, but I doubt he will. The data supports my view, there is no alleged objectivity here, only an assumption backed by numerical evidence.

They also scored more goals before Garnacho played so much, and before Mainoo was in the team. Are they the reason?
You've got different players under different managers playing different ways in different with big changes in form. It's not as easy as looking at a couple of stats and saying it's because Hojlund doesn't get involved in the build up.

The manager has stated he wants to play high-tempo transitional football which usually involves a number 9 who is technically proficient, the numbers I provided show Rasmus is not that technically proficient, Garnacho, Rashford, and Bruno all play better when they play with a number nine who is technically proficient.