I doubt we'll find a better winger who's willing to be a backup/ rotation player.
Smashley Young
- Thread starter Red Defence
- Start date
This series of posts from the Zaha thread yesterday sums up my opinion on Young.
The fact is, he's an excellent winger when fully fit, but he's been held back by two terrible years of more or less perpetual injury. Accusations of his lacking in quality are far wide of the mark:
The fact is, he's an excellent winger when fully fit, but he's been held back by two terrible years of more or less perpetual injury. Accusations of his lacking in quality are far wide of the mark:
Did these people not see him on crutches near the end of the season? Of course he was injured! And that was just one of his injuries. I also believe we're not going to get a better rotation winger than him, when he's on his game he can be devastating.
Agreed
When was Young fully fit last season? Just like quick glance at his injury record shows you that he struggled with both knee and ankle injuries for more or less the duration:
After an initial period of recovery in November 2012 Young made from run of games throughout December in which he played very well. The rest of the season was a complete write off for him.
It's the same story from the 11/12 season. Young only enjoyed two periods of full fitness during that year (August to September and then February to May) in which he excelled for us, scoring and creating many goals.
His injuries have been unfortunate Cider, but how you can say he was "very good" in that run of games is beyond me.
He had decent games against Chelsea and City (funnily enough) but was completely anonymous in others.
He had decent games against Chelsea and City (funnily enough) but was completely anonymous in others.
He played well against Reading as well
Cider which website is that screengrab from?
transfermarket
DId well when he came on imo
Probably did most of those injuries diving.
And against West Brom.
Underwhelming player.
Hopefully we'll have only more season of Young (better if until January) and then Moyes can tell him to feck off. Honestly Sir Alex, what the feck were you thinking, man?
Not taking any of the above on board then, no?
Never mind that he's been unfortunately injured for most of his United career yet when fully fit he scores and creates goals in abundance. Shit player! What were you thinking, SAF?!
I just remember near the beginning of his first season with United, when we played Arsenal a nd he scored this:
with another just like it and I thought to myself that he would be a success here. Sadly that wasn't to be, but his career is far from over and for all we know he could have a very productive season like he used to have consistently with Villa. He certainly has better players to aim at so if he stays injury free could provide a lot of assists.
with another just like it and I thought to myself that he would be a success here. Sadly that wasn't to be, but his career is far from over and for all we know he could have a very productive season like he used to have consistently with Villa. He certainly has better players to aim at so if he stays injury free could provide a lot of assists.
So on that website...
Premier League
11/12
Nani: (missed 8 games)
Assists - 12
Goals - 8
Young: (missed 10 games)
Assists - 11
Goals - 6
12/13
Nani: (missed 18 games)
Assists - 3
Goals - 1
Young: (missed 18 games)
Assists - 5
Goals - 0
....I'm not really seeing evidence of a huge gulf in quality between the two during their time at the club together. Young gets praise through gritted teeth as being a 'not bad rotation option'. Nani gets called 'on his day one of the best around'
Premier League
11/12
Nani: (missed 8 games)
Assists - 12
Goals - 8
Young: (missed 10 games)
Assists - 11
Goals - 6
12/13
Nani: (missed 18 games)
Assists - 3
Goals - 1
Young: (missed 18 games)
Assists - 5
Goals - 0
....I'm not really seeing evidence of a huge gulf in quality between the two during their time at the club together. Young gets praise through gritted teeth as being a 'not bad rotation option'. Nani gets called 'on his day one of the best around'
What's this obsession with stats?
Just watching Young play is enough to see he's an underwhelming footballer
I'm not even a big Nani fan but he's in a different class to Young.
Just watching Young play is enough to see he's an underwhelming footballer
I'm not even a big Nani fan but he's in a different class to Young.
Genuinely don't think he is. All I read is 'Nani is superior, look at that season he got 649 assists stats!!"
Yet when the statistics indicate that there's actually not that much difference between the two players when both given the opportunity to play the same level, suddenly statistics don't count?
Young has at times been a solid contributor on the pitch -- and he went above the call of duty with that insane match against Arsenal -- perfectly adequate as a squad man for United and as a starter for most other clubs, but he's never going to make Bayern or Barcelona defenders shit their pants. That may be okay, since as a club we're nowhere close to being able to make Bayern or Barcelona shit their pants anyway. But if we're ever going to disturb the bowels of those two clubs we absolutely need to have wingers who do some serious damage.
Yeah, feck his goalscoring and chance creation stats; he's never gonna score goals or create anything because he's shit!
I'm happy not to discuss a single stat. My views on Nani are admittedly my own perception as to what I like/don't like to see. It's how we all make our judgements if we're honest. But you can't use stats in one instance to disprove someone's opinion and then argue against stats in the next breath with opinion. That, much like the treatment of Young, isn't fair.
Obviously they can be used to an extent, as evidence that someone is playing well.
But when it's the basis of an argument then it's just daft, or when stats point to some incorrect conclusions then we are right to question them - which is what happened just then.
Rooney got 22 goals/assists in 22 league starts last season, but he was playing poorly for huge spells. Or do you think he had a great season because of his stats?
Watching the two players makes it clear that Nani is on another level to Young, it's not even something I'd consider close.
I'm not referring directly to you mate
Hugely. I can't see the obsession in measuring a player only by statistics. Yes, it's nice if a player is productive, but a player's general contribution and threat outside of that is what impacts the dynamic of the team going forward, our ability to keep possession, our general level of threat, etc... For a player who isn't a Ronaldo or a Messi that is constantly hammering in goals, or players like Ozil or Fabregas at their best who notch up assists and chances at an absurd rate, the quality of a player's performance in general is paramount.
People wonder why it is our team can look a bit choppy and broken going forward sometimes, and the reason is because we've often got Young/Valencia out wide with an off form Rooney in the centre looking awkward or a bit bland in possession at times. When you play too many players like that, the team loses its threat and composure. I don't think Ashley Young is poor by any means, but everyone knew what we were getting when we signed him - an above average winger who would look fairly mediocre for the most part for a top level team. Our whole left side dies sometimes when he's playing there; there is no confidence that he'll look to get the ball and cause a threat or keep the ball in tight situations. He has reached a good level at times, but has had far more underwhelming performances than good ones.
The difference between someone like Nani and Young in terms of general quality and threat is vast. Wth Nani, you're like to have more variation, better composure in possession, better touch, better link up, a more nervous opposing full back, etc... He becomes someone that a team must keep an eye on, as opposed to someone you'd expect to just step inwards a bit and whip a cross in. This sort of impact on a team is something seen with your eyes and not measured with numbers. Ask any team and its full backs on the planet who they'd want to deal with out of a Nani and a Young and it'd be Nani without any hesitation whatsoever. Young is still a fair bit off the level that Park reached here, and has not had a single performance like one of Park's best (back end of 10/11) in my opinion.
That all being said, he is clearly a good option to have as a squad player. I just think people get so bound up in stats that they lose all sight of actual performance - something that only a completely absurd amount of statistics could hope to come close to measuring.
I like Ashley Young, he's a hard working lad and he genuinely loves that he's a Manchester United player. He contributes consistently, I don't know where people get the idea he offers very little. He's happy with his role as a squad player. On top of that, he's English. Ashley Young, good player, worthy Manchester United player.
A fit and in form Young offers plenty.
I like Young same reason as i like Valenica. You know what you'll get. It's easy to have him and the entire team on the same wave-length which, in my view, is preferable than having an unpredictable wild card out there.
If the opposition don't know what you're going to do - great
If your team mates don't know what you're going to do - not so great
If the opposition don't know what you're going to do - great
If your team mates don't know what you're going to do - not so great
What do you get with Young?
I wouldn't compare Valencia with Young because they are completely different, even in the way you talk about. You absolutely know what you will get from Valencia, but I don't think you do with Young.
The general expectation I would get from Young would be 'safe' football. He rarely beats a man and generally prefers to cut back and play a pass to Evra or inside to Carrick or Cleverley. If he is being offensive he'll cut onto his right foot all the time.
With Valencia he brings a very clear, consistent threat to the side - width. Out of all the three wingers he provides by far the most natural width out of them, he'll just stand their all game.
I think Valencia offers a much more clear 'you know what you'll get' aspect than Young. He brings a clear tactic to the team which I don't think Young does.
He's fecking bobbins.
With Young you get consistency of performance (when fit) you get consistency of delivery. You get the opportunity for forwards and winger to form an understanding and rhythm of play. If you're a striker you'd want to know largely when you can expect a cross, where you can expect a cross and what sort of cross you can expect. It's useful. Not knowing where the hell the ball will go half the time isn't quite so useful in my view.
Right so trying to make this clearer, you think he offers:
1) The best crossing ability to the team
2) Consisteny - not sure on this whatsoever.. he's not consistent at all, unless he's going through a consistently average spell
3) Forward and winger to form an understanding - Seems vague. I wouldn't say he does either, he rarely makes progressive runs and is far more likely to link up with Carrick or Evra than one of the forwards. He'll pass backwards more than he'll pass forwards IMO
The only one that might have any truth is that he's the best crosser, he probably is but he rarely beats defenders so doesn't use that skill particularly well IMO - hence Valencia completing more crosses per game than Young despite not having as good a delivery
When he's fit he's consistent.
Furthermore how can we make a determination on crossing ability but apparently cannot look at assists?
Furthermore how can we make a determination on crossing ability but apparently cannot look at assists?
You don't really though, to be honest. Young's link up play for us has been extremely mediocre, and his consistency is found more in the sense of playing it safe and passing it to Evra, or continuously putting cross after cross in the box. A player like that is bound to have reasonable assist stats, but at what cost? How beneficial is it really to have a player with such consistently little invention to his game on the wing when we already lack adventure through the centre?
It's interesting to consider Valencia at his best by comparison - a player that many would say is limited and predictable. The difference though is that, say, Valencia of 11/12, would consistently destroy his full back, consistently drive in threatening crosses, run great distances with the ball down the right hand touchline with no hesitation, etc... His predictability was a good thing, and that 'you know what you get with him' factor was a compliment and a testament to the fact that you couldn't do much about him even if he was predictable. You could expect him to put in a top class performance basically, where as with Young the Arsenal-type performances come as more of a pleasant surprise. Games like that one from two years ago are rarities and not ones that come as part of a big string of very good/excellent performances.
I don't care what the stats say, Young is one of the most uninspiring players we've had in recent times. He's a decent squad player and I don't mind him being here because he seems okay with that role, never complains, and always work hard. But, he should never be a regular starter for us.
Don't be dense
You used assists as the basis of your argument for something unconnected to the statistic - "Young and Nani are equally as good as each other because they had similar assist stats"
I'm not doing that. I'm using the stat as factual evidence for an argument related to the statistic
"Young might be the best crosser of the ball, but he doesn't use it enough which is backed up by Valencia completing more crosses"
Can you not see the difference?
What you did was the equivalent of picking any stat and using it as the basis for an unrelated judgement - "Cleverely and Carrick have similar pass completion percentages so they are just as good as each other"