Scott McTominay image 39

Scott McTominay Scotland flag

2023-24 Performances

View full 2023-24 profile

4.9 Season Average Rating
Appearances
43
Goals
10
Assists
3
Yellow cards
4
Status
Not open for further replies.
He was poor but better than Eriksen who was anonymous so it gave a us a better shape. The goals are drying up which was always going to happen sooner or later. For once I didn’t mind him coming on as needed some height at set pieces and couldn’t continue with Eriksen. Casemiro clearly not ready so something bad to be done.
 
Roboc7 said:
He was poor but better than Eriksen who was anonymous so it gave a us a better shape. The goals are drying up which was always going to happen sooner or later. For once I didn’t mind him coming on as needed some height at set pieces and couldn’t continue with Eriksen. Casemiro clearly not ready so something bad to be done.
Click to expand...

Agree with this, we were getting overran for 60 minutes with Eriksen. Obviously McTominay was nothing special but don't think he made us any weaker.
 
He's stealing a living and he is one of the only players not on massive wages, that's how crap he is.
 
Should have been on at half time. Eriksen was piss poor . He isn't conceding that second goal so easily.
 
While I would have preferred Casemiro, we absolutely needed to sub Eriksen off so Scott was the next best option. I certainly wouldn't say he was good, but he was better than Eriksen, did well to get on the end of that late chance (and did badly to miss it) and also got himself in a great position earlier when Rashford tried to get past two players instead of passing it to a completely open Scott. He himself perhaps should have passed it to Garnacho earlier on instead of taking the shot himself from the edge of the box, but it was a decent chance so I could understand the choice.

All-in-all, he wasn't good but he wasn't as bad as some in here are making out.
 
MadDogg said:
While I would have preferred Casemiro, we absolutely needed to sub Eriksen off so Scott was the next best option. I certainly wouldn't say he was good, but he was better than Eriksen, did well to get on the end of that late chance (and did badly to miss it) and also got himself in a great position earlier when Rashford tried to get past two players instead of passing it to a completely open Scott. He himself perhaps should have passed it to Garnacho earlier on instead of taking the shot himself from the edge of the box, but it was a decent chance so I could understand the choice.

All-in-all, he wasn't good but he wasn't as bad as some in here are making out.
Click to expand...

Scott automatically starts as shite for many people from the moment he appears in a game, a 6/10 performance from him will be rated as a 3 or 4. He came on, put himself about, brought some mobility and running power, pressed well, and got himself on the end of chances or what should have been chances. He was fine, but much of the discussion around him just reverts to that automatic assumption that he was shite without any willingness to look at his performance in isolation.

It is a bit pathetic and something that this fanbase has a history of with other players. See the sheeplike treatment of Maguire.
 
MadDogg said:
While I would have preferred Casemiro, we absolutely needed to sub Eriksen off so Scott was the next best option. I certainly wouldn't say he was good, but he was better than Eriksen, did well to get on the end of that late chance (and did badly to miss it) and also got himself in a great position earlier when Rashford tried to get past two players instead of passing it to a completely open Scott. He himself perhaps should have passed it to Garnacho earlier on instead of taking the shot himself from the edge of the box, but it was a decent chance so I could understand the choice.

All-in-all, he wasn't good but he wasn't as bad as some in here are making out.
Click to expand...

I mean you just described a box crasher that failed at what he's supposed to do. Excusing it as "not being as bad as Eriksen" is pointless. Of course McTominay "found himself in good positions" it's essentially his only job. People excused Ten Hag starting him for so long because we apparently "needed his goals" as if he's some Lampard level goal scorer
 
This guy could go climbing on K1 in flip-flops and shorts and he would survive.
He avoided transfer this summer because club wanted too much money for him. Then we had at least 3 midfielders always injured so he played a lot.
Now Mejbri decided to leave, club (probably) will want to sell Casemiro, Amrabat's loan will end so we will not be in position to sell him. Plus his contract is ending 2025 which will put us in position to "protect value" and we will offer him new contract.

He is survivor. Something like Jones and Lingard were. Players not good enough to be in club but who always managed to avoid an axe.
 
Thought West Ham would be back in for him - should snap their hand off if a £30m bid were to come in again.
 
Sunny Jim said:
And this time he would be sold. As he is a youth product fee from West Ham would count as pure profit in terms of FFP.
Click to expand...
Exactly - it was daft to reject it in the first place.

Not good enough as a DM and only useful further forward, which is not the way United want to play. So therefore a decent option off the bench when you need a goal - that is it.
 
People keep saying that he can't be a good squad player, but a guy who can come on, bring energy, aggression and be a goal threat from an attacking midfield position is always useful. He is a better player than most on here give him credit for.
 
His value is as an impact player off the bench, as we saw tonight can be very useful in that role as game opens up. He just shouldn’t ever start games because he isn’t a midfielder. If ETH has sense to just keep using him as a sub it will work out a lot better.
 
I was gutted when I saw him being lined up for the sub and I thought it is a mistake to change Casemiro and McTom. I think, positionally it was a net loss but he really balanced it out today with quite a lot of good scenes today. And thats not even mentioning his goal, which obviously is vital. I really don't like that he seems an automatic sub for ETH but kudos to the man, he really did well tonight!
 
Bobski said:
People keep saying that he can't be a good squad player, but a guy who can come on, bring energy, aggression and be a goal threat from an attacking midfield position is always useful. He is a better player than most on here give him credit for.
Click to expand...

Not a good player in a dysfunctional team, but probably would’ve been a fan favourite in some of Fergie’s teams.
 
As a sub and attacking presence, he's done his role well going forward in this game. Quite a few good touches and passes to the right players during those transitional moments. Still would have liked a bit more midfielding but can't really criticise too much.
 
Decent when he came on and a good header for the goal. Probably should have had a second goal too.
 
Used perfectly.

Impact sub.

Further up the pitch, when the game is ragged and circulating possession is of less value.

Unfortunately, the only good substitution ETH made from a game management perspective.

The rest were awful.
 
I wished he would be just a bit better at playing football. What an icon he could be for us. Captain for years to come.
 
Against Wolves McT was used in his most effective role: put him on late, have him get to the edge of the box and on the end of crosses. He's a handful in that mode. He even did well holding up and passing the ball.
 
He is a decent option off the bench for a goal, has to be said.
 
Come on West Ham, he's got 7 goals this season, is a menace around the box, and undeniably has his uses. Cough up that 40 million in the summer you stingy bastards.
 
One decent cameo off the bench and everyone has suddenly convinced themselves he's good enough for our squad and should be kept. Our fans have the memories of goldfish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.