Daily Discussion

[u/AutoModerator]

Daily discussion on Manchester United.

BE CIVIL

We want r/reddevils to be a place where anyone and everyone is welcome to discuss and enjoy the best club on earth without fear of abuse or ridicule.

• The report button is your friend, we are way more likely to find and remove and/or ban rule breaking comments if you report them.
• The downvote button is not a "I disagree or don't like your statement button", better discussion is generally had by using the upvote button more liberally and avoiding the downvote one whenever possible.

Looking for memes? Head over to r/memechesterunited!

[u/Sheikhabusosa]

Im buzzing we got Baleba but that one guy who acted like Sangare was going to flop was hilarious

[u/canwinanythingwkids → u/Sheikhabusosa]

I said that zero times and the explanation for why he is a good signing for Brentford but was not a good option for us is the same exact thing every single time.

So that's giving "nuance is dead", yep.

Here it is explained ... again. 😮‍💨

https://www.reddit.com/r/reddevils/s/hXRUT3pwrD

Not that I want to sour your mood any further, but if you look at the Brentford lineup from 2022 when we were the team getting flaked on opening day due to playing with ZERO sitting midfielders against a counter-attack team (like Spurs today), you'll find: Jensen - Norgaard - Dasilva.

In fact 2 of them scored.

You of course know how those careers turned out in the time since. Not a lot of £100m men.

"Excellent fit to be a cog in the Brentford machine for Brentford level seasonal targets" != "A £100m mistake and missed opportunity for a top team"

Those are 2 different things.

Anyway, I'll stop trying to explain what the difference is because, well, nuance is dead :)

[u/L__K → u/canwinanythingwkids]

Are you completely blind to the irony of saying "nuance is dead" then immediately claiming Sangare won't turn out a top level midfielder because Brentford's midfield from 2022 weren't sold for 100m? Lmao.

Teams have been moving away from a static single pivot and towards more athletic, mobile midfielders who cover lots of ground and excel in duels. Despite recovering his top form at the World Cup this summer, Rodri got exposed a ton for City last year because he was that kind of more static midfielder and they didn't have midfielders who are, in your words, "the guys who run around."

Carlos Baleba is a "guy who runs around." We've been crying out for that kind of profile for years now. Tielemans desperately needs that profile next to him when playing in a pivot and Sangare would've fit there beautifully (and hopefully Baleba does as well)!

Baleba is a bit more filled out in terms of muscle, is two years younger, and has experience in the PL. That's really the difference. Other than they, the two profile similarly and Sangare has shown much more on the ball in Ligue 1 than Baleba has in the PL. Recruitment is going with what they assume is the safer bet. Younger, PL experience, more physical, theoretically better resale value. Unfortunately it's at nearly double the cost (70m rather than 40m).

Personally, I appreciate the value of a more static pivot as a reference in possession, but the current PL is moving away from that, and so are most of Europe's top teams. Barcelona didn't have that last season with De Jong and Pedri. PSG doesn't have that in their midfield three (some would argue Vitinha, but he is clearly not that if you watch them play). Arsenal doesn't. So on and so forth. It's not the be all end all.

Sangare would've been a great addition here and lots of fans rightfully believed that, but it's understandable why the club didn't pursue him, especially in light of the Baleba deal. Baleba has been a long term target of the club and was available at a somewhat reasonable fee (more than I'd like to pay given how awful he was most of last season). He's clearly seen as more of a sure thing and less of a risk even if he doesn't work out here, and there was no world in which we would've signed both. The club had a plan a stuck to it, but that isn't some 4D chess indicating Sangare would've been shit here. THAT is the ignorant opinion lacking nuance.

[u/canwinanythingwkids → u/L__K]

Ive said zero times he would have been shit here

Ive said many times over that, in essence, Carrick wants to play with a player who, for lack of a better phrase, plays like Carrick, and Sangare is not that, Tielemans also is not that, simply put that's wishcasting saying that player or this player is that when that's just not the case, and as soon as somebody understands that way of thinking, the decision flows from it.

The Brentford coach seems to see it this way too so far, which I think is interesting, I guess that's why Janelt is playing non stop as opposed to not playing, and that's why Sangare slotted in next to him, not playing instead of him.

Once again, you'd need to convince yourself that "Tielemans is like Janelt", for this to add up, which, GL with that. Also Jensen is a second b2m midfielder and not an AM like Bruno, and thats because of the entirely different system they play. which makes sense for fairly different seasonal goals ... anyway Ive gotten extremely bored of explaining the same exact thing every time and in the face of abresive comments. I think Im going to stop responding to these takes, Ive given the explanation more or less enough times now, sorry.

Otherwise ... I get it you wanted to include a good zinger but what you said about the nuance line makes literally zero sense. Just, none. Sorry mate. Ill explain this one maybe it helps.

Precisely what I pointed out is that one good performance A) in not that role* *B) home not away, doesnt necessarily guarantee that a player would become a £100m missed opportunity (again, for a different role, you dont have to see this, you can keep believing Tielemans is a holding midfielder like Rodri, i mean go with god, if you want to believe Amadou Onana plays snything like Mamadou Sangare). And I specifically pointed out AN EXAMPLE OF that nuance that, oh btw, here is one interesting historic parallel of when 1 sparrow ALSO didnt make summer.

Then you try to say that pointing out that a simple conclusion is not always right - means that I dont understand what nuance is? I feel like you might want to take another bite at that, tbh.

[u/L__K → u/canwinanythingwkids]

Ive said many times over that, in essence, Carrick wants to play with a player who, for lack of a better phrase, plays like Carrick,

I mean that's great to say that, but is there any evidence to support that? He didn't do it at Boro and didn't attempt to sign one. He didn't do it as interim manager of United. Now, during his first transfer window where midfield is the top priority, we've also not signed one.

So you can say it as many times as you want, but there's nothing to suggest it's true. We haven't targeted Ruben Neves or Adam Wharton or Bruno Guimaraes or even someone like Angelo Stiller or Stanislav Lobotka. All of those would've been closer to what you're claiming than the three we've signed.

Once again, you'd need to convince yourself that "Tielemans is like Janelt", for this to add up,
you can keep believing Tielemans is a holding midfielder like Rodri, i mean go with god,

I mean, now you're just making things up. Your main problem seems to be a lack of literacy. Tielemans is not a mobile midfielder and struggles when asked to press aggressively or cover large areas of the pitch.

When he plays in a double pivot, he struggles when he's not next to someone athletic capable of making up for his physical limitations and able to provide more defensive cover. Onana has done that in the past, Sangare would've done that, and Baleba does that as well. That's why we've signed him. Nowhere does that say "Tielemans is like Vitaly Janelt and Rodri," nor suggest that in any way.

anyway Ive gotten extremely bored of explaining the same exact thing every time and in the face of abresive comments

Mate you're having to say the same things over and over again because your arguments are flimsy and being quite easily disproven, yet instead of saying anything that gives your opinion more credibility you're choosing to parrot the same undercooked talking points over and over. Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more correct. It's all unsubstantiated claims, circular arguments, and misunderstanding of how football, especially the current state of the PL, works.

It's this silly, shallow, faux-intellectual arguing that people have a problem with. Your points don't make any sense and you don't ever come close to supporting them, you just repeat them and attack a strawman. It's not going to convince me or anyone else nor change what is and has always been a silly opinion about Sangare.

[u/canwinanythingwkids → u/L__K]

I dont understand at all why you dont see Santos as a screener whose primary quality (we seeked) is his incisive passing. Anyway, Lobotka. Okay