Young should be in his prime, yet he's been underwhelming ever since his move here. A few good games at the start of last season wont change that. For the reported fee and wage he's on he certainly wasn't just bought to be a squad player either. Problem is if we do eventually look to offload him it may be difficult because i dont see any other top club wanting to go near him. Injuries have obviously hindered him this season but i dont remember many games when he has made too much of an impact.
Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
I don't know why you insist on arguing with me all the time.
I said, and you even quoted and bolded it:
He's played less or a similar amount to Kagawa and Nani
As in: Less than Kagawa, and similar to Nani
And Nani has spent longer out injured than Young. As has Kagawa.
Totally agree, I hope we sell him and buy someone else to replace him. Maybe we already did with Zaha signing.
But doesn't that back up the idea that Young is picked more, surely? If Nani has been injured more yet Young has still started more games?
I think Rowem is saying that Young has been available significantly more than Nani yet he has a similar number of apps.
Was shocked when he signed but Fergie loves wingers. He is an average player - even Milner is better than him.
Er, no, it'd mean the opposite
Nani can't be picked if he's injured, you silly sausage
It does, feck, my brain is completely fried today.I don't think Nani has been injured more though, it's probably much the same overall. Maybe not.
Make of this what you will. I'd agree with most of the things he say's about Young though.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...hould-sell-ashley-young-while-they-still-can?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...hould-sell-ashley-young-while-they-still-can?
That Arsenal goal was amazing. I love how he went to celebrate well before the ball crossed the line. Type of shot you just know will go in.
I'd like to give him one more season. He may not be very consistent, but on his day he can be very effective. Adding to the fact he seems to be really enjoying being a United player, I think we should give him one more season. He's been out injured a lot of times too.
I'd like to give him one more season. He may not be very consistent, but on his day he can be very effective. Adding to the fact he seems to be really enjoying being a United player, I think we should give him one more season. He's been out injured a lot of times too.
Ashley Young really does get a raw deal. He's a squad player. And one of the reasons we won the league this season was on the strength of our squad. He's enthusiastic, English, fast, skillful, has a decent delivery, he doesn't play every week. I don't see any issues with him.
Look at Sinclair at City, he's the alternative really. And Young is way ahead of him.
Look at Sinclair at City, he's the alternative really. And Young is way ahead of him.
Sometimes I like to pretend that we didnt actually spend £18 million on Ashley Young.
Its difficult. But I try my best.
Its difficult. But I try my best.
He's the (less than) half-the-cost alternative who is on far worse wages and doesn't get half the games for City that Ashley Young does for us (when he's actually fit).
Whilst I'm not sure on the initial comparison, it's fair to say that at least Ashley Young has made some positive contributions during his time here... I don't even think you could say Scott Sinclair has contributed anything to City.
Young is far superior player of the two... though again, I'd also much rather have him on my wing then someone like James Milner. In fact, it's probably fair to say that Young is still Englands best actual winger.
For any reasons that made us won the league this season, it has nothing to do with Young for sure.
Of course he's better, but he made it out that Sinclair is our equivalent of Young, he's not, Sinclair is 4th choice behind players like Silva and Nasri, Young is arguably SAF's second most preferred winger after Valencia, cost us a lot of money and is one of our highest paid players. it was a weird comparison, I assume purely because they're both English, in reality the right player to "compare" him with in that context would probably be Nasri.
Yeah, the initial comparison was a bit off... and I'd agree with you that it's closer to Nasri, though out of Nasri or Young, I would most certainly have Young... but that's probably more due to my opinion on Nasri then Young.
Even when he's poor, at least Young still puts the effort in. I'm not sure how City fans constantly put up with Nasri's frequent disappearing acts.
Even when he's poor, at least Young still puts the effort in. I'm not sure how City fans constantly put up with Nasri's frequent disappearing acts.
The profile of the signings, and the squad status of Young and Sinclair is what I'm comparing. Young has played more than Sinclair, obviously.
Young wasn't brought in to be developed into world player of the year, and I know we've a high standard when it comes to our players, I just don't see how Young's presence in the squad can be so off putting?
Young wasn't brought in to be developed into world player of the year, and I know we've a high standard when it comes to our players, I just don't see how Young's presence in the squad can be so off putting?
We should be happy to have players like that, players happy and proud to play for the club
I know, and that's what I'm arguing. Young was a far higher profile signing and is considered a far more important part of our squad than Sinclair is to City's.
Young has become a more important player, yes. But both were purchased as squad players. Says something for Young that he's impressed enough to get more games than Sinclair.
Well that's bollox for a start. He was one of our best players in the 2-3 at Wastelands, arguably the match which first established our credentials as likely champions.
Don't really get the Scott Sinclair comparisons but I think Young has suffered this season from the same stigma that means Valencia has got so much stick i.e. a winger that starts ahead of Nani, something that seems to enrage fans of the latter.
Mind you, I do think Young has failed to live up to expectations so far. Looks great in some games but very often anonymous and has put in some really poor performances. In his defence, he has been unlucky with injuries, which is something he's almost never had to deal with in his career before (averaged 45 starts/season since 2008) Every now and then he's looked like he's about to step up a level (for England, as well as United) only to regress again, usually after a spell out injured. It's all a bit frustrating though and his fondness for diving is annoying too. To try and claim he's achieved nothing in his United career so far and been a complete passenger in our squad is just daft though.
Oh come on, you think both players were bought with the same thing in mind? Young was a first choice winger for us from day one.
It was a silly comparison and you know it.
Young's good enough to be a squad player for us, but if he was starting every week I'd be disappointed.
I don't know, we had Nani and Valencia at the time who would be considered two superior wingers to Young by most.
For me, Sinclair and Young were both purchased to add depth and push for a first team place. And one was more successful than the other.
Completely agree, but according to most:
Loyalty means nothing unless the player is a superstar. It doesn't matter if they love the club. However, if they are good players, they should be loyal and never want to leave..
The modern football fan
Agreed, he's near enough our first choice left winger.
Young was nearly three times the amount of Sinclair, the transfer fees alone indicate they weren't signed with the same intentions.
I think it's quite clear that SAF rates Young very highly, more so than most on here. maybe we expected him to be a squad player, but when has SAF ever paid fees and wages like that for someone he wants here as a squad player before? Can you think of anyone?
That's it. If he had been signed as a squad player, with a squad player fee, there wouldnt have been so much debate about the transfer in the first place. A lot of people had their reservations because for that money you expect to buy people who improve the first team. There was always a bit of controversy about whether he did that. But SAF clearly thought he did.
Anderson?
There was an inflation in his price for being English. But OK, yeah he was brought in to add competition to Nani and Valencia.
I always think it's strange when people argue the toss about who is and isn't a "squad player" at United. Fergie rotates so much that in any given season there's usually only 5 or 6 players who aren't "squad players".
In the season just gone, I would say that only Carrick, Ferdinand, Evra, Van Persie, Rafael and Rooney could be counted as "definite first XI players" All the rest were rotated in and out of the team fairly frequently.
The last time we had a winger who was guaranteed a regular slot in the team was Valencia, the season before last.
In the season just gone, I would say that only Carrick, Ferdinand, Evra, Van Persie, Rafael and Rooney could be counted as "definite first XI players" All the rest were rotated in and out of the team fairly frequently.
The last time we had a winger who was guaranteed a regular slot in the team was Valencia, the season before last.
I like him as a player. I think he is a very adaptable player - quick, can cross, shoot, pass, works hard off the ball, covers Evra.
I wouldn't say he is a defensive younger, but him and Nani on both wings interchanging is something I want to see more often if we keep playing 4-4-2.
All three of them have been much of a muchness this season IMO. With Kagawa and Welbeck giving Fergie more options out wide.
In an ideal world, you'd like to see one or two of them really establish themselves as first choice by performing at a level where Fergie has no choice but to keep playing them. That's when they reach a point where they're definitely not a "squad player". For various different reasons this hasn't happened in the season just gone, which is why our wings have been unusually weak.
Plus DDG of course. I think the whole back five would be very settled if it wasnt for injuries, I dont think SAF likes mixing things up at the back as much as he does elsewhere.
If you take that, and then you have Carrick, Rooney and RVP in front also basically picking itself, its only the wings and the other midfielder that was changing. Arguably more indicative of the available quality in those positions than SAF wanting to mix things up for its own sake. I actually think SAF is less inclined to persistent tinkering for its own sake than he was a few years ago, though I have no idea whether facts back that thought up.
Still reckon the Space Jam aliens robbed our wingers talent this season.
After Christmas, definitely. Not so much before then.
He's probably a good example of someone who visibly made that step up from squad player to one of the first names on the team-sheet, half way through a season. For which he deserves all the credit.
Agree that Fergie seems to tinker a bit less these days. You don't see players on a good run of form getting dropped the way you used to. Apart from old gits like Giggsy, to save his creaking joints.
Wasn't Scott Sinclair £8 Million (with addons... though considering he hasn't played football probably hasn't happened)?
Still, the fee is £8 million... thus I question your maths.