We will never win the league with Bruno Fernandes in the team...

[Marwood]

If you put Bruno in a really good team and as a consequence get him plenty of the ball in good positions he will score and assist loads. We know this because we've seen it.

So to make out he's a destroyer of worlds is pretty ridiculous.

He has his flaws like most players. There's nothing wrong in adjusting for his flaws. Teams do it all the time.

The problem is too many of our players have the same flaw. That you can't compensate for.

Put Bruno in a top team and you'd have no problem winning leagues with him. His output can be good enough to make up for his shortcomings.

 

[DJ_21]

What are these threads? No one was saying anything like this when he first joined and we went unbeaten. He got a record, first player to win 4 player of the months in a single calendar year, and you guys are out here slating him? I think the problem is with most of our team, the whole team has to be playing good to make everyone stand out. When the team plays bad everyone plays bad. Don’t think we’ll win a league with mctominay a starting midfielder and rashford a starting striker. There’s so many reasons why we won’t be winning a league title any time soon and Fernandes isn’t one of them. He’ll create and score goals for you… we don’t have a natural number 9 or a world class midfielder yet.

 

[danamann]

Giving him that extension was criminal.

 

[GlasgowCeltic]

Bruno Rashford Maguire Mctominay and DDG are the big five that need to go, enoughs enough, think atleast 2/3 will in Hags second summer

 

[LoneStar]

Maybe we should try him as a LW who free roams, similar to Mata at RW. We will need the LB to overlap consistently for this.

Both Rashford and Sancho aren't really playing that well up front anyway, so maybe worth a shot.

 

[yamo123x]

Bruno used to run his legs off for the team and was such a likeable player, since his contract he has developed a arrogant swagger, became a whinger and has ambled around like the other overpaid high earners (rashford sancho martial maguire shaw)...

When Ten Haag came here he promised fast attacking football you cant do that when Bruno gives away 3 of every 4 passes he makes.

Play Eriksen in his role and put another top midfielder alongside Casemiro and lets start dominating games again.

 

[Rozay]

If you put Bruno in a really good team and as a consequence get him plenty of the ball in good positions he will score and assist loads. We know this because we've seen it.

So to make out he's a destroyer of worlds is pretty ridiculous.

He has his flaws like most players. There's nothing wrong in adjusting for his flaws. Teams do it all the time.

The problem is too many of our players have the same flaw. That you can't compensate for.

Put Bruno in a top team and you'd have no problem winning leagues with him. His output can be good enough to make up for his shortcomings.

And that team you use an example was not good enough to win the league so what’s the point? The argument is not whether he can score goals and create chances. My view is that at his very best, in a team that suits him, that team will still be top 4 at best - and your rebuttal is to bring an example exactly when that happened.

The difference in being a good team and one that can take that next step to be elite and compete for the PL and the CL is more structural than the personnel we had during this good spell you reference. We need to control games, dominate possession and sustain attacks. We played a reactive football, which may well take us to second, but second isn’t really the topic of discussion here. We’re talking about the difference between a very good team and a great one.

When we were at the very best we have been since Sir Alex for a while under Ole, the consensus was still that Ole was not a good enough manager to go the next step and win the league. What that meant wasn’t that he ruins the dressing room, or that we just need someone to motivate better. The issue was, as you know, regarding the football we played. When you take this approach, you surrender to the collective over the individual, especially if you are not talking Balon’Dor level individuals. So if you have a blank canvas to try and do what Ole couldn’t and build a team that, even though his team was good - goes a step further and becomes a great team that dominates games and sustains attacks - do you think ‘Bruno Fernandes’? And if you say you do, why do you, when it doesn’t suit his qualities? Is it just because he is Bruno and you like him? Or is it because your objective observation is that he is suited for what you want?

Some people just refuse to actually analyse and prefer to act sensitively. When we finished second and third, McFred were regulars in midfield. Clearly, they had to have been doing some things right in order for them to be regulars in s team that finished above 17 or 18 others. Yet there was little confusion amongst many that even though they were good at certain things, if we want to take the big step from second to first, we need to replace them with players who were good at different things. Because you simply need those things to be better than everyone else in a tough league. I could point to all the saves that then England #1 Joe Hart made to react like I’m his mother at the suggestion that he’s not the keeper for a dominating team. Yet he was replaced due to him not being conducive to the footy his boss wanted. Bruno is not a Messi ‘fit in at all costs’ level of player. And he is quite clearly a hindrance to playing high posset football, so why the sensitivity?

 

[DWelbz19]

i expected Ten Hag to move him to the wing, like he did with Ziyech at Ajax. Both have/had similar problems, not really suited for a spot on the midfield due to playing risky passes. Ziyech was moved to the right wing in order for him to be able to keep playing those risky passes, because losing possession on that position is less dangerous.
But Ten Hag brought in Antony, so i don't see it happening anymore.

Ziyech is a much better dribbler than Fernandes. Fernandes is pretty much atrocious when he's isolated, as he hasn't the skill nor the physicality to get past a player. His crossing isn't particularly great either, so he would be a massive waste out wide. Fernandes really can only play one position to a high standard (generally speaking) and that's through the middle in the no.10/second striker position he occupies.

 

[Member 125352]

It seems he isn't good enough after all but if the rest of his teammates had his hunger, drive and determination we would be playing a lot more exciting football. I cannot call him out, he gives everything for the team.

 

[DarkXaero]

It's not just the washed version of Westbrook though. In fact I would compare him to prime Westbrook a brilliant soloist but not much more.

Westbrook reached the NBA finals at a young age, and him + KD were a title contender.

 

[JPRouve]

Westbrook reached the NBA finals at a young age, and him + KD were a title contender.

It's for an other thread but it was quite obviously KD's doing in spite of Westbrook. The playoffs results of Westbrook without KD are telling. Also "old" Westbrook isn't statistically that different from "prime" Westbrook.

 

[Martial]

It was an away game against literally the best team in the world right now, where the new manager got the tactics completely wrong (understandably).

Pogba fans love a knee-jerk reaction against Bruno, whilst remaining dead silent on any criticism of Pogba for 5 years.

 

[mu4c_20le]

It seems he isn't good enough after all but if the rest of his teammates had his hunger, drive and determination we would be playing a lot more exciting football. I cannot call him out, he gives everything for the team.

Hard to say since it's only been two months with ETH. Having a second striker with his kind of work rate should be useful for any manager, just needs to get a tune out of him again.

Cant remember.. I seem to remember him missing a few games and us playing well. Maybe I dreamt about it,.

probably because he acts frail on the pitch. But the guy is a machine, that's why we see him all the time.



The leg injury was when sporting ultras invaded the club grounds and assaulted him.

 

[Marwood]

And that team you use an example was not good enough to win the league so what’s the point? The argument is not whether he can score goals and create chances. My view is that at his very best, in a team that suits him, that team will still be top 4 at best - and your rebuttal is to bring an example exactly when that happened.

The difference in being a good team and one that can take that next step to be elite and compete for the PL and the CL is more structural than the personnel we had during this good spell you reference. We need to control games, dominate possession and sustain attacks. We played a reactive football, which may well take us to second, but second isn’t really the topic of discussion here. We’re talking about the difference between a very good team and a great one.

When we were at the very best we have been since Sir Alex for a while under Ole, the consensus was still that Ole was not a good enough manager to go the next step and win the league. What that meant wasn’t that he ruins the dressing room, or that we just need someone to motivate better. The issue was, as you know, regarding the football we played. When you take this approach, you surrender to the collective over the individual, especially if you are not talking Balon’Dor level individuals. So if you have a blank canvas to try and do what Ole couldn’t and build a team that, even though his team was good - goes a step further and becomes a great team that dominates games and sustains attacks - do you think ‘Bruno Fernandes’? And if you say you do, why do you, when it doesn’t suit his qualities? Is it just because he is Bruno and you like him? Or is it because your objective observation is that he is suited for what you want?

Some people just refuse to actually analyse and prefer to act sensitively. When we finished second and third, McFred were regulars in midfield. Clearly, they had to have been doing some things right in order for them to be regulars in s team that finished above 17 or 18 others. Yet there was little confusion amongst many that even though they were good at certain things, if we want to take the big step from second to first, we need to replace them with players who were good at different things. Because you simply need those things to be better than everyone else in a tough league. I could point to all the saves that then England #1 Joe Hart made to react like I’m his mother at the suggestion that he’s not the keeper for a dominating team. Yet he was replaced due to him not being conducive to the footy his boss wanted. Bruno is not a Messi ‘fit in at all costs’ level of player. And he is quite clearly a hindrance to playing high posset football, so why the sensitivity?

It's not sensitivity, I just disagree because your logic is crazy.

To say not winning a league proves anything about one player makes zero sense.

To think us not winning a league while Bruno is here makes you right also makes zero sense.

If you want a player who has a higher pass percentage, that I can understand. Taking this massive leap and saying he alone blocks any quality team from winning a league screams of somebody with a gripe.

 

[2 man midfield]

So if we sell Bruno to City, Arsenal is guaranteed the title?

Exactly. In the right side, he’s no issue whatsoever. We need to get to that point.

 

[Terranova]

Ziyech is a much better dribbler than Fernandes. Fernandes is pretty much atrocious when he's isolated, as he hasn't the skill nor the physicality to get past a player. His crossing isn't particularly great either, so he would be a massive waste out wide. Fernandes really can only play one position to a high standard (generally speaking) and that's through the middle in the no.10/second striker position he occupies.

Yes, but Ziyech's thing wasn't his dribbling, it was his playmaking.

 

[King Azaz the Unabridged]

And that team you use an example was not good enough to win the league so what’s the point?

I imagine the point is that, while a lot of players in that team that finished second are not good enough to be playing for a title challenger (you named the two most obvious ones in your own post), Fernandes clearly stood out as one of the best. Therefore if you kept him in that team and replaced some of the players around him, there's no reason to assume the team would still be top 4 at best. Which is why this bolded bit:

My view is that at his very best, in a team that suits him, that team will still be top 4 at best - and your rebuttal is to bring an example exactly when that happened.

is not quite valid. If you keep Fernandes as he was in 2020/21 and replace the players around him, there's no reason to automatically conclude top 4 would still be the best we could do. You think it would be - that's fine, but the counter-argument is that if Fernandes is surrounded by better teammates than he had then - say, replace Rashford with Mane, Martial/Cavani with Jota, and Greenwood with Salah - that team could easily go from 74 points to 90+ even if he keeps giving the ball away as he does now.

It's definitely not as black-and-white as saying Fernandes is " an antithesis of being able to play good football to the highest level" to the point where having him in the XI puts a ceiling on your points tally.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Hard to say since it's only been two months with ETH. Having a second striker with his kind of work rate should be useful for any manager, just needs to get a tune out of him again.


probably because he acts frail on the pitch. But the guy is a machine, that's why we see him all the time.



The leg injury was when sporting ultras invaded the club grounds and assaulted him.

Thats weird.. I was sure we played well without him for a few games under Ole.. Oh well!

 

[Rozay]

It's not sensitivity, I just disagree because your logic is crazy.

To say not winning a league proves anything about one player makes zero sense.

To think us not winning a league while Bruno is here makes you right also makes zero sense.

If you want a player who has a higher pass percentage, that I can understand. Taking this massive leap and saying he alone blocks any quality team from winning a league screams of somebody with a gripe.

Sigh, you really do not understand anything I have said. You just mentioned, as an example, that we know that Bruno can play well and score goals in a good team etc - BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IT. How can that be a valid example to disprove my argument that even a team that gets the best out of Bruno it will not be good enough to win the league? You pick a team that failed to do so?

I mention a sensitivity because the same is said about several other players on this forum all the time. Better players than Bruno I'd argue. And nobody reacts so afflicted, so conceptually, it is not 'crazy logic', perhaps you just feel Bruno is that much better or more special than players like De Gea or Ronaldo. Ronaldo scored us 24 goals last season as a striker and the consensus was pretty much unanimous that we cannot have him in a title winning side. But he's only Ronaldo I guess, not the Great Bruno. Bruno has never won the league in his entire career. That is not solely down to him, but it at least pulls questioning of his own role away from the ridiculous. More so than similar threads on players who have achieved greater success like De Gea, Pogba and Ronaldo. And the paragraphs and paragraphs I've written screams of someone who has an opinion, which I have provided reason for, whether you agree with it or not, not something to be dismissed as a 'gripe', I'm not a fecking 12 year old.

 

[Marwood]

Sigh, you really do not understand anything I have said. You just mentioned, as an example, that we know that Bruno can play well and score goals in a good team etc - BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IT. How can that be a valid example to disprove my argument that even a team that gets the best out of Bruno it will not be good enough to win the league? You pick a team that failed to do so?

I mention a sensitivity because the same is said about several other players on this forum all the time. Better players than Bruno I'd argue. And nobody reacts so afflicted, so conceptually, it is not 'crazy logic', perhaps you just feel Bruno is that much better or more special than players like De Gea or Ronaldo. Ronaldo scored us 24 goals last season as a striker and the consensus was pretty much unanimous that we cannot have him in a title winning side. But he's only Ronaldo I guess, not the Great Bruno. Bruno has never won the league in his entire career. That is not solely down to him, but it at least pulls questioning of his own role away from the ridiculous. More so than similar threads on players who have achieved greater success like De Gea, Pogba and Ronaldo. And the paragraphs and paragraphs I've written screams of someone who has an opinion, which I have provided reason for, whether you agree with it or not, not something to be dismissed as a 'gripe', I'm not a fecking 12 year old.

Because the other 10 players might not be good enough themselves to win the league?

Can't believe this needs pointing out.

 

[Jack-C20]

I feel Bruno has shown more than enough for me to wait until ETH’s system is properly implemented. Do feel the system has to be right for Bruno and luckily I’m not making the decisions as I’m not sure what that is. More control in midfield for sure though.

 

[The_Midfielder]

We will never win the league with Pep and Klopp around

 

[Desert Eagle]

We will win the premier league and Bruno Fernandes will be the first to lift the trophy.

 

[Rozay]

I imagine the point is that, while a lot of players in that team that finished second are not good enough to be playing for a title challenger (you named the two most obvious ones in your own post), Fernandes clearly stood out as one of the best. Therefore if you kept him in that team and replaced some of the players around him, there's no reason to assume the team would still be top 4 at best. Which is why this bolded bit:



is not quite valid. If you keep Fernandes as he was in 2020/21 and replace the players around him, there's no reason to automatically conclude top 4 would still be the best we could do. You think it would be - that's fine, but the counter-argument is that if Fernandes is surrounded by better teammates than he had then - say, replace Rashford with Mane, Martial/Cavani with Jota, and Greenwood with Salah - that team could easily go from 74 points to 90+ even if he keeps giving the ball away as he does now.

It's definitely not as black-and-white as saying Fernandes is " an antithesis of being able to play good football to the highest level" to the point where having him in the XI puts a ceiling on your points tally.

I didn't say it was black and white. It's an opinion piece, the reasons for which I have forwarded more than once, as have a number of others - so clearly not something I have just pulled out of the air and evidence that it is possible for someone other than one with a 'gripe' about Bruno to think this.

And I agree that Bruno was one of the best in that team. That is also my point. That is a team in which Bruno showed the very best of his capabilities. It just wasn't a good enough team. And anyone who watched the games would be able to see why. You could replace Rashford with Mbappe in the hope that he could produce more 'moments' than Rashford. But that is still the best you can hope for. The team came second and third, but played nowhere near the type of football as the team that came first, and were still, even in terms of points, way off the very best. You mention all these players we could replace - these players were playing just as well as Bruno ffs. Rashford for Mane - pretty sure Rashford scored more goals than Mane even. Martial got 21 goals. Cavani came in and got about 18. And your suggestion is to replace them with not Messi - but Jota?! Jota is a perfect example of a player able to fit into the system of a top team, he's not a better individual than our forwards, give or take for form.

Let's even get to the point. You watched the games yourself when we finished second and third. You also saw we were miles off winning the league, despite most of our players considered to have played well, especially in the first season. So if you had to turn that same team into title winners, what would you do in the market that you would honestly believe would get it done? If the only answer you can think of is 'buy Mbappe, Verratti, Van Dijk, Haaland' etc - then that just proves my point. Because that isn't what we were up against ourselves. Our rivals had good players playing as great teams. So who from 20/21 would you have upgraded and to make that same team good enough to fight for the league? I mean, we went and added Ronaldo, Sancho and Varane to it and still looked miles off. It's clear as day that we needed to go back to the drawing board and stop this clueless percentage football we have played that worked under Sir Alex but does not in today's game. We needed a new coach, not just for the sake of it, but we needed a new coach BECAUSE we needed to modernise the way we play in order to play a level /brand of football that could compete with the two teams capable of winning the league. Teams that were not full of all the world's best individuals themselves, but they at had the qualities to play the right way. Once we got that coach, we then, obviously, need to get players in that image. In your own opinion, forget mine, is Bruno in such image? This is the simple sequence I have followed to arrive at this thread, so if you disagree with it, tell me which part and why.

 

[Rozay]

Because the other 10 players might not be good enough themselves to win the league?

Can't believe this needs pointing out.

It needs pointing out because you described it as us seeing Bruno in a good team playing well. I know we have! I'm not sure what you referencing that team achieves. My argument has never been that it is impossible for Bruno to play well on a football pitch, my argument has been even in those teams, they will fall short. So what was the point of you bringing that team up, beyond showing a time that Bruno played well? Did that team win the league or something?

 

[Marwood]

It needs pointing out because you described it as us seeing Bruno in a good team playing well. I know we have! I'm not sure what you referencing that team achieves. My argument has never been that it is impossible for Bruno to play well on a football pitch, my argument has been even in those teams, they will fall short. So what was the point of you bringing that team up, beyond showing a time that Bruno played well? Did that team win the league or something?

I'm not arguing that winning or not winning a league means anything about one single player. That's your stance. You're trying to drag me into your own crazy logic.


You think that team outside of Bruno was good enough to win the league then? You must if you think its proof Bruno is preventing us from doing so.

 

[Castia]

I don’t understand Bruno or the role he’s playing

He joined and looked world class as an attacking midfielder/second striker behind the front man scoring goals and making assists for fun

Hes nowhere near that player these days he’s almost a deep playmaker who struggles to pick out players and constantly gives the ball away it’s a complete waste of time.

You want Bruno in and around the box for some reason he’s been playing like a De Bruyne clone who can barely pass a ball

 

[The Purley King]

Bruno has energy, lots of it, but a good percentage of that is misplaced.
Him running 50 yards to close down someone shows passion for sure but when he inevitably gets passed around easily he’s now out of position.
This is what I hope ETH can coach out of him. Yes press but only when it’s appropriate. He could be great in a fully functional press.
His profligacy on the ball is a different problem altogether. I’m not sure that can be coached out of him at this point and I think that is what OP is getting at. Just can’t retain the ball (or doesn’t think he has to) at crucial points. He lacks a bit of football intelligence for when to play it safe and when to attempt something risky.
Have to trust ETH to make the right call on that.

 

[Rozay]

I'm not arguing that winning or not winning a league means anything about one single player. That's your stance. You're trying to drag me into your own crazy logic.


You think that team outside of Bruno was good enough to win the league then? You must if you think its proof Bruno is preventing us from doing so.

No I don't think that team was not good enough to win the league. I also don't think, seemingly unlike you, that Bruno was levels above them and being held back by them or something. That team was doomed to never win the league as soon as we started to build a team in that style/image. It isn't a good enough approach. However, it is the approach that gets the best out of Bruno Fernandes. Again. The type of football required to win the league actively plays against the strengths of Bruno Fernandes and conflicts with the weaknesses in his game. So you can see how I have arrived at my theory of Fernandes and winning the league? Probably not tbh.

 

[JPRouve]

Sigh, you really do not understand anything I have said. You just mentioned, as an example, that we know that Bruno can play well and score goals in a good team etc - BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IT. How can that be a valid example to disprove my argument that even a team that gets the best out of Bruno it will not be good enough to win the league? You pick a team that failed to do so?

I mention a sensitivity because the same is said about several other players on this forum all the time. Better players than Bruno I'd argue. And nobody reacts so afflicted, so conceptually, it is not 'crazy logic', perhaps you just feel Bruno is that much better or more special than players like De Gea or Ronaldo. Ronaldo scored us 24 goals last season as a striker and the consensus was pretty much unanimous that we cannot have him in a title winning side. But he's only Ronaldo I guess, not the Great Bruno. Bruno has never won the league in his entire career. That is not solely down to him, but it at least pulls questioning of his own role away from the ridiculous. More so than similar threads on players who have achieved greater success like De Gea, Pogba and Ronaldo. And the paragraphs and paragraphs I've written screams of someone who has an opinion, which I have provided reason for, whether you agree with it or not, not something to be dismissed as a 'gripe', I'm not a fecking 12 year old.

I see why you get a push back, the idea behind your OP isn't necessarily well served with hyperboles. And I also don't know if it's that accepted in Football. If I was to literally answer to your title, I would say that it's nonsense, in theory you can definitely win with Bruno in your starting eleven and by win I mean that you will be the favorite to win.

Now the question is, how? There is actually a recent team that had the tools to support someone like him, it's Bayern with prime Ribéry, Robben, Schweinsteiger and Kroos, these four players compensate for all of Bruno's flaws and also have the abilities to use his obvious qualities, the other one would be Mourinho's Chelsea when he had Oscar flanked by Hazard and Willian. Taking that into account, your OP and title should probably be based around the idea that Bruno can not be your best player, he can't be expected to be your best player, he can be the 4th, 5th or 6th best player of a title chasing team though.

 

[90 + 5min]

Problem is not Fernandes. Problem is our wide players and attackers. If they did their job by closing down opposition he wouldn't need to run like headless chicken and be all over place. TenHag needs to tell him to keep it central, regardless of wide players.

 

[Desert Eagle]

I didn't say it was black and white. It's an opinion piece, the reasons for which I have forwarded more than once, as have a number of others - so clearly not something I have just pulled out of the air and evidence that it is possible for someone other than one with a 'gripe' about Bruno to think this.

And I agree that Bruno was one of the best in that team. That is also my point. That is a team in which Bruno showed the very best of his capabilities. It just wasn't a good enough team. And anyone who watched the games would be able to see why. You could replace Rashford with Mbappe in the hope that he could produce more 'moments' than Rashford. But that is still the best you can hope for. The team came second and third, but played nowhere near the type of football as the team that came first, and were still, even in terms of points, way off the very best. You mention all these players we could replace - these players were playing just as well as Bruno ffs. Rashford for Mane - pretty sure Rashford scored more goals than Mane even. Martial got 21 goals. Cavani came in and got about 18. And your suggestion is to replace them with not Messi - but Jota?! Jota is a perfect example of a player able to fit into the system of a top team, he's not a better individual than our forwards, give or take for form.

Let's even get to the point. You watched the games yourself when we finished second and third. You also saw we were miles off winning the league, despite most of our players considered to have played well, especially in the first season. So if you had to turn that same team into title winners, what would you do in the market that you would honestly believe would get it done? If the only answer you can think of is 'buy Mbappe, Verratti, Van Dijk, Haaland' etc - then that just proves my point. Because that isn't what we were up against ourselves. Our rivals had good players playing as great teams. So who from 20/21 would you have upgraded and to make that same team good enough to fight for the league? I mean, we went and added Ronaldo, Sancho and Varane to it and still looked miles off. It's clear as day that we needed to go back to the drawing board and stop this clueless percentage football we have played that worked under Sir Alex but does not in today's game. We needed a new coach, not just for the sake of it, but we needed a new coach BECAUSE we needed to modernise the way we play in order to play a level /brand of football that could compete with the two teams capable of winning the league. Teams that were not full of all the world's best individuals themselves, but they at had the qualities to play the right way. Once we got that coach, we then, obviously, need to get players in that image. In your own opinion, forget mine, is Bruno in such image? This is the simple sequence I have followed to arrive at this thread, so if you disagree with it, tell me which part and why.

Very well written. I will say let us be objective and look at the evidence of Bruno under ETH. 9 games so far. Played in all of them. Off the top of my head was shit in all our losses and maybe good in one or two games. The rest has been average. So it's not looking good but it's very early on. That new coach just made your boy his captain and Bruno could be ETH's Maguire or he could help us win the league.

 

[JPRouve]

Problem is not Fernandes. Problem is our wide players and attackers. If they did their job by closing down opposition he wouldn't need to run like headless chicken and be all over place. TenHag needs to tell him to keep it central, regardless of wide players.

How does that answer the issue of poor ball recycling and ball movement from the three central midfielders? Bruno is definitely a problem, as is McTominay, as was Fred and has as is Eriksen to a smaller extent.

 

[arnie_ni]

His situational awareness at times is dreadful. Always looking the killer pass when he should be trying to retain possession.

 

[Marwood]

No I don't think that team was not good enough to win the league. I also don't think, seemingly unlike you, that Bruno was levels above them and being held back by them or something. That team was doomed to never win the league as soon as we started to build a team in that style/image. It isn't a good enough approach. However, it is the approach that gets the best out of Bruno Fernandes. Again. The type of football required to win the league actively plays against the strengths of Bruno Fernandes and conflicts with the weaknesses in his game. So you can see how I have arrived at my theory of Fernandes and winning the league? Probably not tbh.

So if the overall team wasn't good enough to win the league that year, why use the lack of title winning against Bruno?

You can think Bruno is not good enough to play for the best team in the league.

You can't use the lack of a PL title in the last four years as proof.

Harry Kane hasn't won a title. You might think he's not good enough to play for a title winning team.

But Spurs not winning the title doesn't prove your argument.

 

[House Mkhitaryan]

We need to implement a system where all of our players (Bruno included) know where to be and what to do in all situations, with and without the ball. We are nowhere near that point now, especially without the ball and in transitions. Bruno can almost certainly learn and adapt to a functioning system but it will take time for everyone.

 

[90 + 5min]

How does that answer the issue of poor ball recycling and movement from the three central midfielders? Bruno is definitely a problem, as is McTominay, as was Fred and has as is Eriksen to a smaller extent.

Because, when it comes to Fernandes, he don't have energy for anything but running right now. He is running for Sancho, Rashford and Antony. I can't see him play next to Eriksen in this fomation with this kind of wide players because Eriksen is not good enough to play defensive game when Fernandes is all over place. I don't have any issue McTominay playing like he did last month.

 

[noodlehair]

Nah don't buy it. A good enough team would win the league with Fernandes in it, and he'd probably contribute 10+ league goals and similar in assists.

But I do agree he isn't a midfielder. He's more a number 10 than a number 8, so you'd need a very good couple of midfielders behind him and to maybe sacrifice him in certain games.

Seen a few posts saying that playing him with Eriksen compounds the problem but I dint buy that at all. The two are completely different players and Eriksen actually reads the game and covers the defensive ground a lot better than some of the supposed defensive midfielders we've had in recent times. One poor game against city shouldn't skew the work he's done in the previous games.


On the other hand I'm far from convinced you can win a league with rashford as the leading striker. He can't play with his back to goal and is far more suited to playing off a striker or from the left.

And just in general you can't win the league when one of the teams in it is miles better than everyone else.

The problem with Pogba is a good enough Premier league team with Pogba in it would probably put him on the bench due to him making the team worse or not being consistent enough.

 

[the_cliff]

Nah don't buy it. A good enough team would win the league with Fernandes in it, and he'd probably contribute 10+ league goals and similar in assists.

But I do agree he isn't a midfielder. He's more a number 10 than a number 8, so you'd need a very good couple of midfielders behind him and to maybe sacrifice him in certain games.

Seen a few posts saying that playing him with Eriksen compounds the problem but I dint buy that at all. The two are completely different players and Eriksen actually reads the game and covers the defensive ground a lot better than some of the supposed defensive midfielders we've had in recent times. One poor game against city shouldn't skew the work he's done in the previous games.


On the other hand I'm far from convinced you can win a league with rashford as the leading striker. He can't play with his back to goal and is far more suited to playing off a striker or from the left.

And just in general you can't win the league when one of the teams in it is miles better than everyone else.

Here's a good question, when was the last time a team won the premier league utilising a number 10 ?

Hint: 20

 

[Rozay]

I see why you get a push back, the idea behind your OP isn't necessarily well served with hyperboles. And I also don't know if it's that accepted in Football. If I was to literally answer to your title, I would say that it's nonsense, in theory you can definitely win with Bruno in your starting eleven and by win I mean that you will be the favorite to win.

Now the question is, how? There is actually a recent team that had the tools to support someone like him, it's Bayern with prime Ribéry, Robben, Schweinsteiger and Kroos, these four players compensate for all of Bruno's flaws and also have the abilities to use his obvious qualities, the other one would be Mourinho's Chelsea when he had Oscar flanked by Hazard and Willian. Taking that into account, your OP and title should probably be based around the idea that Bruno can not be your best player, he can't be expected to be your best player, he can be the 4th, 5th or 6th best player of a title chasing team though.

I'm not sure I fully understood the structure of your response. In that, I don't know what the hyperboles you are referencing are or what you mean isn't necessarily accepted in football. And I don't mind push back, we're here to debate after all, I just have little time for when we descend into BS like 'you're saying this because you hate Bruno' or something. There are enough people agreeing with me to show that there is at least reason to my point.

Anyway moving on, I don't think Bayern are a fair example as I've mentioned a number of times. I am certain Bruno could win the league with them. And as for Mourinho's Chelsea - perhaps, but that was yesterday and today is today. Literally every year the standard has been getting pushed further and further. Pep has taken the top to new levels, and Klopp has gone there with him. This is because people rose to Mourinho's level, and then the top managers found a way to take it further to gain an advantage. English football didn't always require such dominance on the ball for example. Before you could win it without it, pace on the wings and quick transitions would do it. Until there became a few teams that can do that and the best looked for ways to gain an advantage again. Not just at the top, but in the middle too. The teams have moved on from when Jose last won the league. This is why managers also get past their best. They may have the freshest ideas for a period, but then teams catch up and even pass them. Often, those managers are stuck still trying to repeat their old formula. Mourinho at both United and Spurs showed no evidence of evolving again. He instead brought in his 6ft2 guys and tried to win the way he had won, only to find his giants being ran rings around by midgets. Even when he got it working to a level that may have won him a title in another year, Pep had sadly already evolved, and the game had gone somewhere else. The best team Mourinho had here, we came second but City won the league by more than 20 points if I recall.

Regarding Bruno being the best player, I both agree and disagree with your view here. Firstly, I don't think he is special enough to be the #1 best player for a team that wins the biggest trophies. So on a pure individual basis, a team relying on the individual brilliance of Bruno is not the same as relying on the brilliance of Van Persie, Suarez or Henry. If that's the absolute best you can do, it's still not good enough IMO. However, Bruno's skillset, IMO, also demands him to be the main player on the team, because in order to be the 4th, 5th or 6th best player on a team, your game almost by definition needs to be simpler and one that almost solely serves a system. And as I've said, I don't think Bruno does the basics well enough to be that player. He needs to be the star player where his actual strengths - which is his ability for the outrageous, is his main job. Only that team doesn't win a title, for me.