Manchester United

Agree. I think Mkhi will be class for Arsenal unfortunately. But as long as Sanchez is going well then we don't really need to worry about what Mkhi is doing.

Really fooks me off when people and journalists bring up the wages. We got a world-class player for free effectively, we got another high-earner's wages off the books which effectively subsidises Sanchez' wages, and we can afford to pay that much for him and are willing to do it.

The deal for Sanchez is still worth far less than Van Dijk's transfer fee + wages at Liverpool and he can't even do (defend) what they're paying him for!

Haters will always be haters.

Totally agree, key sentence in bold for me.  

If that's the market, and what the club can afford to pay, then what's the big deal? I don't see why clubs should be expected to think about anything else except what they can afford, and what it will take to get the player to sign. 

The football market is a complicated place. But it becomes very simple if the buying club's valuation of the player is at / above the valuation of the selling club. And each club can only value their players based on their financial power. In this case, Arsenal's valuation of Sanchez with 6 months left on his contract is equal to United's valuation of Mkhitaryan with 3 and half years left. 

Sound logic, but I don't think that's what Arsenal or ManU management would have been thinking when they weighed it up. 

I think they would have when considering whether there was any transfer fee to pay on top of the player swap.

This 400K thing is silly.

It's a big signing fee + a wage a Manchester United star can expect, that probably equates to 400k a week, but that is the nature of a transfer in Sanchez's situation.

Sanchez: 400K x 3 years = 62m

Any other player: 300K x 3 years = 47m

The difference between the two amounts is that for a normal player funds would be given to the selling team, thanks to Sanchez's situation the 15m difference is a signing bonus. This is no different to any other sort of numbers you'd expect in 2018.

I don't know why people are running around trying to pretend this is some outrageous figure - it's a standard transfer being sold by the media as something else.

Possible reasons why:

City can save face because they didnt get him - they could have missed out on him for a number of reasons and while "financial reasons" is the least likely, it is the easiest way out.

Arsenal can save face because they lost a player of his level - again, he could have left for a number of reasons, emphasising that he left to get paid a lot more means that the other factors like ambition, the manager etc get forgotten.

All other big spending clubs can save face - by highlighting the big spend of someone else, you justify your own teams spend. (PSG, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc.

Hard to know whether Mou is gonna play Sanchez at Yeovil? Can't imagine the pitch will be immaculate so he might not be risked. Would like to see McTominay and Lindelof get a go. Shaw should be our starting LB but didn't play against Burnley so you'd imagine he'd get a run.

Interesting piece by Michael Cox on Sanchez, and what role he might play at ManU. 

http://www.espnfc.com.au/english-premier-league/23...

Confirmed he is in the squad for Yeovil. Looking forward to a lie in and watching the match tomorrow morning! Good to see Tuanzebe on loan to Villa too. They have some good CBs (Terry/Chester/Elphick) so hopefully he actually plays.

At least we won't have to worry about getting Liverpool in the next round of the FA Cup.

All this chat about City vs United spending gets me really worked up. I just cannot see how people (both fans and pundits) can get it so wrong.

Mourinho started before the 16/17 season, saw a team that was the 5th in the league so made 4 signings. Won Europa and League cups. Signed another 3 players and are 2nd in the league. So the squad is made up of 7 Mourinho signings and 18 players from before he started.

Guardiola started before the 16/17 season, saw a team that was 4th in the league so made 6 signings. Won nothing. Signed another 6 players and are first in the league. So the squad is made up of 12 Guardiola signings and 9 players from before he started.

Surely its clear that Guardiola has got more, so should be doing more. 

Its a bad reflection on City as a club that they were forced to replace the aging players that were coming to the ends of their contracts all at once. And that they couldnt bring through any players from their youth system to fill thise gaps. 

United has always been more forward thinking and long term focussed and if City hadnt constantly thrown money at their short term problems, then United would be sitting top amongst the league and England. 

And he is doing more, they're surely going to be champions, and probably set a record points total to go with their record spending. 

Who is saying you are wrong about this or that ManU's spending is at the same level? 

I think most people would agree with your post in general, surely. 

Well that, my friends, was a fooking disaster and a shambles. Smalling awful. Why on earth Shaw isn't the first choice LB is well beyond me. We looked flat. I've said it on here before and I'll say it again, Pogba needs to be playing in a midfield three. 

Only saving grace today was that Chelsea also lost. Only three ahead of Liverpool ...

Mourinho wears this one again. Doing the exact same fudgeing thing over and over again, expecting something to change...

Article #1 - You cannot comeback from 2 goals down by sitting deep. You need to build some momentum, pressure players, get some of your fans behind you, make the opposition nervous, get played. Mourinho has us sitting back waiting to get beaten.

Article #2 - When you're being completely overrun in midfield you do not substitute Pogba for Fellaini. Honestly fudgeing brain dead decision. Felt bad for Fellaini honestly. Herrera needs to start games like this, as it is he is just another talent being wasted by Mourinho's stubbornness. Mourinho needs to find a system that suits the players and the club and given the underwhelming performances of literally everyone he has failed catastrophically.

Article #3 - I don't want to blame him because he had very little service but Lukaku is not clinical enough. If you're going to sit and counter then you need clinical, ruthless players ala Diego Costa up front. Lukaku does not fit that bill.

How was Sanchez? Looked like he was playing in the no.10 role.

Martial preferred on the left? 

1. Agreed. No one was able to press and force their way back into the game. The three players who are the best at doing that are Lingard (but he was playing in a deep 10 the first half) Rashford (bench) and Herrera (playing as a deep midfielder and is out of form).

2. Fellaini sub was an odd one, but looked to be intended to assist us going very direct. When he only lasted 7 mins, i dont think we can put much weighting on this. 

Fitting players into a system is an odd one, because players need to fit into his system too. Yes we have seen a three man midfield being more effective, but the injuries to Carrick, Fellaini and the form of Herrera has forced him to play Matic and Pogba deeper. A centre mid purchase might allow him to do this next season. Right now, either Fellaini or Herrera needs to force their way into the team as its not so straightforward to drop Martial / Sanchez / Lingard for an out of form CM just for the shape. 

3. Lukaku is statistically more clinical than Kane having only had 59 shots to Kanes 141. The service is definitely the difference. Lukaku has 5 assists to Kanes 1. He is not perfect but is not letting the team down. 

1. Yeah. Again I don't mean to shark on Lukaku, as I striker I hate doing it - but sometimes just running around and closing defenders down can inspire those behind you to get stuck in as well. But Lukaku obviously hasn't been told to do this.

2. Again, why not Fellaini for Martial or Sanchez if you're going to go direct - play him as a striker.

3. Very interesting. I will rephrase to say that a player like Lukaku needs some opportunities and while he isn't my favourite player in the world we are definitely doing him a disservice. (as we are with others)

Those stats are really surprising because Kane is quite clearly a better player, and seems more clinical in front of goal. 

According to the premier league website, Lukaku has had 66 shots and Kane 141. Lukaku has 11 goals and Kane 21. So that's 6.7 shots per goal for Kane, and 6 shots per goal for Lukaku.

However, it's also key to look at the stat "Big Chances Missed". Lukaku is showing 10 this season, and Kane 9. Kane has had more than double the amount of shots so I think that shows Kane is shooting from tougher areas far more often, and that makes sense - scoring from tight angles is one of his key skills. 

Having said all that, I agree with you really, I don't think any of the issues you're discussing really come back to Lukaku. The guy gets goals, he has a great track record. When the team's playing well, he will score, when they're not playing well, he won't, simple as that really. Same as Lacazette for us. When we suck like yesterday, he's not really in the game. When we're playing well, he scores. 

Which is exactly why in football stats only show you the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Kane is a far far better player than Lukaku.

The only player that actually looked like a footballer was Sanchez. 

I'm not happy that I was right but City are miles ahead of all the other sides. The reason I came to that conclusion months ago was I watched every side play more than once and it was so obvious. The people that said Utd ( and a lot of them were Woolwich fans) would win the league  is because they more than likely only watch their own side.

As a Utd supporter I not only watch every game they play,  I also watch 80% of the other sides so I can make a comparison. It was pretty easy to see which is the best side in the league. 

Nah, stats show outputs and actual things that happen. They can tell better stories than gut feel and socialised perceptions of players. Statistics are great when used correctly. 

Because Kane is not a far far better player than Lukaku. He might be better, he might be worse, but its definitely not a sure run thing that he is better than Lukaku.

Lukaku is more clinical with goals to shots and assists his team more (could be down to better team mates, could be him). Kane has creates more opportunities (might be his team, might be him taking more shots), makes more key passes and his goal output is better. 

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

I would swap Kane for Lukaku any time. He is a much better player.

http://www.goal.com/en/news/ferdinand-lauds-kane-w...

Lukaku might be better than Kane????

Yikes

Tekkers point was that Kane takes a bunch of shots for his goals. 

Will be interesting to see how they go at the world cup. 

No, his point was that Lukaku was "more clinical" than Kane, and he also specifically stated that Lukaku might be as good as, or better, than Kane, in general. 

I disagree on both fronts, and I don't believe Kane's shots-to-goals ratio is an effective measure of how clinical he is. I believe finishing "big chances" is more representative of that. 

Shark, I'd trade Kane for Lukaku in a heartbeat. Football stats aren't as telling as sports like baseball and cricket, because the sample size of game changing events is so much smaller.

We haven't been giving Lukaku the service he requires, but he's also been poor in possession when we do get it to him. He's shown that if we can create him clear cut chance he'll bang them in. I think Kane does a far better job of creating his own chances, even if they're roughly as clinical as each other in front of goal.

That said, I'm not unhappy with how Lukaku has played. He's still young and will continue to develop, and as Sanchez is integrated into the team he will create some of the chances we've been missing. I'm still confident of a 2nd place finish and a CL run.

Pretty sure that by definition, being clinical is how well a player scores goals from the shots they take. Big chances or easy chances, are a bit different. Composure has more impact on the big moments you speak of.

That is the quote. Read it again. I was clearly pointing out that to say that Kane is certainly the better player is not true when there are cases for both to be better at some aspects. 

Lukaku's first touch in general is poor. He would struggle to trap a bag of cement.

Kane is miles ahead as #1 striker. Lukaku is no better than Firmino who's not even an out and out striker.

Clinical, to me, (there is no dictionary definition for it's use in this context) is someone who puts away the one-on-ones, the tap-ins, penalties, free headers, etc etc. I'd have Kane doing that ahead of Lukaku any day. 

And I see your sentence, I did understand it the first time. I am just saying that in my opinion, Kane is CERTAINLY the better player. 

Also, composure and being clinical are basically the same thing right? If you have composure in front of goal, then you are going to be clinical?

Fortunately missed that one.

Mourinho... spends the last 18 months refusing to play Rashford and Martial anywhere but the left-wing. Then he signs a flexible player than can pretty much play anywhere up front and refuses to play him anywhere other than left-wing while pushing Martial to a position he's clearly uncomfortable in.

Every player is chronically underperforming under Mourinho.

Glad I missed this one too. Either Jose is trying to impliment a system and forcing the players fit into that system, or he is trying to fit the players he has into a system that best suit them all. Neither is working. The issue is that the problem could be with Jose (keeps using same system) or the players (cant all work together in best system.

Again, everyone thinks the 4-2-3-1 is the problem but if United plays a 4-3-3 then another of the attackers misses out and Herrera/McTominay/Carrick plays. Might solve the problem but probably causes more issues elsewhere. 

Nevertheless, still second and big games coming up. We could have just been a lot more comfortably second. Ugh

Hard to argue that he's trying to make a "best for all" system work when the players he has bought in aren't really doing the business either. 

Sanchez simply has to play on the right. Martial and Rashford definitely cannot play on the right. Given that Pogba HAS to play in a midfield three, I'd get rid of the central attacking midfielder and play the below:

Martial   -   Lukaku    -   Sanchez

     Pogba  -  Matic  -  Herrera

^ that makes a lot of sense to me as opposed to what Mourinho has been doing. 

Also puts Pogba in the exact position and system he excelled in at Juventus.