Manchester United banter 8


Use our rumours form to send us manchester united transfer rumours.

(single word yields best result)

Eds Note - Thanks to everyone who has donated to the charity appeal, over £500 has been raised. It runs until December 11th if you want to donate.

07 Oct 2017 14:54:56
Good article by Andy Mitten regarding Old Trafford. Ed 002 are you aware of any immediate plans for expansion/ redevelopment of Old Trafford?

{Ed002's Note - No, the last proposal a couple of years ago made zero sense. Fans and expansion do not add significant value.}

Agree0 Disagree0

07 Oct 2017 22:15:23
My mate has a mate who works in the ticket office and he reckons united want expansion to 94000.

07 Oct 2017 23:10:59
The leg room absolutely kills me.

08 Oct 2017 07:43:34
Thanks Ed002. Shame as certain parts of the stadium are looking pretty decrepit. If and when new owners take over do you think a brand new stadium would ever be considered or is that just unnecessary?

{Ed002's Note - Sure, one day the stadoium will need to be replaced.}

07 Oct 2017 12:20:13
Slow week so opinions for anyone who has got nothing to do. Best Scandinavian player to play in premier league and best one who's played for United. I'm half Swedish so a bit biased when it comes to Swedes particularly Zlatan who put on a united shirt years too late. I can think of Ronnie Johnson, Blomqvist (spelling)?, Henning berg, obviously Zlatan and when I was younger, Jesper Olsen.
Other teams I think of are Glen Hysen, Dahlin (did he play for blackburn? and Brolin etc.

Agree0 Disagree0

07 Oct 2017 12:39:40
Best Scandavian to play in the league and for United has to be Peter Schmeical.

I think the best Swede to play in the premier league was Ljundberg, a good player on his day.

07 Oct 2017 12:49:04
Big pete stands head and shoulders above the rest.
Outfield i loved olsen but he never really delivered consistently.
Ronnie johnson was terrific and a key member of the treble winning squad.
Zlatan has not been here long enough nor was henrik larrson but both of them i would lo e to have had here for their peak years.

07 Oct 2017 12:50:52
Not forgetting ole who was just about the perfect player in any squad.

07 Oct 2017 13:28:30
Forgot Pete and ole somehow. At work and was bored with the international week. My point as well was that Scandinavians always seem to do well and be consistent in british football. They love our football more than any other leagues and are used to the climate. I'm surprised even more don't play as they always seem to pretty much work out. There was Rommedahl? At Chelsea too who was very quick but a bit flimsy. One of the best wingers around at the time.

07 Oct 2017 15:34:53
Tore Andre Flo wasn’t bad.

07 Oct 2017 16:09:26
Yes he was.

07 Oct 2017 18:11:16
Loved Olsen and Ronny but I really enjoyed Henrik laarsons little cameo.

08 Oct 2017 04:35:09
eidur gudjonsen was a fantastic player. i remember him never been sold while chelseas got abhram oil money. he lasted a few managers.

08 Oct 2017 09:18:34
Henrik Larson wasn't bad.

08 Oct 2017 10:16:44
Brolin was a weird one. Looked fantastic for Sweden, went to Leeds and piled on the pounds (kilos! ) and was totally crap.
Ronnie Johnsen was brilliant and deserves a bit of a shout but Schmeichel hands down for me. Legend.
Worst? Kroldrup. Though he would get a few games at Everton now I reckon.

08 Oct 2017 11:43:43
The worst has to be Bjorn Kvarme (apologies for the spelling) .

Even my Liverpool friends say he's the worst player to grace the premier league!

05 Oct 2017 01:02:56
Not sure how to phrase this but I'll try and get across what I mean. What is everyone's perceived set of PL teams. What I mean, is that when I saw Newcastle in a lower division, it felt weird. SMall clubs feel like fortunate visitors to the PL. If relegation was done away with any they chose a permanent 20 teams, or if you were building your ideal PL, who are the twenty teams you think of as PL teams (first division historically) . This will be heavily skewed by age I'd imagine, as being 33 I don't think Nottingham Forest would enter my list, but it might enter the list of someone in their 60s or 70s. Little fun exercise for international break.

Mine are:
1) Manchester United
2) Manchester City
3) Arsenal
4) Chelsea
5) Tottenham
6) Liverpool
7) Everton
8) Newcastle
9) West Ham
10) Stoke
11) Southampton
12) Sunderland
13) Aston Villa
14) Bolton Wanderers
15) Fulham
16) Birmingham City
17) MIddlesborough
18) Blackburn Rovers
19) Portsmouth
20) Wigan

Clearly this is based on subjective opinion, age, etc, and it was tough leaving out clubs that have had great runs in the top division, but this is my list. Again, its a weird question that can be interpreted different ways, but curious to hear what people think. (or if I left out an obvious one) . Thanks!

Agree5 Disagree1

05 Oct 2017 07:32:53
Wow. Not sure you meant it but this is incredibly patronising.

Firstly, Forest won the European Cup in '79 and '80 so I think people in their 40s will remember that.

"Small clubs feel like fortunate". No they're not, they earned the right to be there like the rest of us. And how are you defining small? History, trophies, attendances, potential? If you use these criteria then I don't see how Blackburn, Wigan and Portsmouth get in your League.

Using my criteria there are a number of "big" clubs who are not in the EPL - Villa, Birmingham, Leeds, Derby to name but a few. However, big or not, they have to earn the right to get into the EPL.

05 Oct 2017 07:58:56
Not sure I agree with Birmingham city, Portsmouth or Wigan. Surprised you didn't have Leeds in there, Nottingham Forest as well as you mentioned, and you appear to have completely forgotten West Ham.

I'd probably sub those three into your list for Birmingham city, Portsmouth and Wigan.

05 Oct 2017 08:14:51
You have forest in there but not Leicester? League champions two years ago!

05 Oct 2017 08:28:04

I've discussed this with mates. I understand where you're coming from. it's something to occupy our minds in the international break too.

With a few exceptions I think it's interesting how closely it correlates with stadium capacities. I think I would take Brighton, Coventry, Cardiff out, and then two of Sheffield clubs and Wolves. Personally, I'd probably get rid of Sheff United.

That would leave me with something like this:

1 Wembley Stadium 90,000[1] Spurs N/ A
2 Old Trafford 76,100 Manchester United Premier League
3 London Stadium 66,000 West Ham United Premier League
4 Emirates Stadium 60,432 Arsenal Premier League
5 Etihad Stadium 55,097 Manchester City Premier League
6 Anfield 54,742 Liverpool Premier League
7 St James' Park 52,405 Newcastle United Premier League
8 Stadium of Light 49,000[2] Sunderland Championship
9 Villa Park 42,785 Aston Villa Championship
10 Stamford Bridge 41,623 Chelsea Premier League
11 Goodison Park 40,563 Everton Premier League
12 Hillsborough Stadium 34000 Sheffield Wednesday Championship
13 Elland Road 37,900 Leeds United Championship
14 Riverside Stadium 35,100 Middlesbrough Championship
15 Pride Park Stadium 33,597[3] Derby County Championship
16 St Mary's Stadium 32,689[5] Southampton Premier League
17 King Power Stadium 32,500[6] Leicester City Premier League
18 Molineux 31,700 Wolverhampton Wanderers Championship
19 Ewood Park 31,367 Blackburn Rovers Championship
20 City Ground 30,576 Nottingham Forest Championship

Obviously this is not a ranking of size of club, just of stadium.


05 Oct 2017 09:42:37
I would go off number of supporters globally:

1. Man Utd 561,987,756
2. Liverpool 301,984,881
3. Chelsea 267,678,011
4. Arsenal 255,175,998
5. Man City 231,776,439
6. Spurs 187,406,566
7. Everton 136,441,391
8. Newcastle 112,804,739
9. Leeds 90,886,839
10. Aston Villa 87,339,920
11. West Ham 81,663,108
12. Southampton 79,664,189
13. Leicester 67,000,728
14. Watford 54,391,046
15. Notts Forest 45,885,960
16. Sheff Weds 37,443,163
17. Middlesborough, 22,228,012
18. Sunderland 19,888,601
19. Wolves 16,970,618
20. Bolton 16,569,841

League positions should be according to the number of supporters. This removes the need for playing any football and of course removes all those pesky footballers from the wage bill.

05 Oct 2017 10:53:40
Manc I think in view of the current discussion about the TV rights revenue affecting the money distribution, I would go with your model. It is obvious that would command the attraction from local and international viewership and ultimately money.
This could even be the start of a discussion for Super League for Europe. But that’s another matter.
However this could be dangerous and potentially kill the talents of and interests in football in UK. The weaker and smaller clubs will suffer from financial backing and football may eventually die in those cities. That’s not healthy. But if it were to remain as current I would support the top 6 current taking 40% of the TV rights revenue. Afterall they are the ones that really bring the attraction.
I think the current is fine and if necessary then I will agree with the Super League evolution.

{Ed002's Note - There are already plans for a European League and clubs have discussed it regularly and in great detail over the years. It of course doesn't consider anything like this.}

05 Oct 2017 11:05:30
How about league titles won/ runners up places?

1 Man Utd 20/ 15
2 Liverpool 18/ 13
3 Arsenal 13/ 9
4 Everton 9/ 7
5 Aston Villa 7/ 10
6 Sunderland 6/ 5
7 Chelsea 6/ 4
8 Man City 4/ 5
9 Newcastle 4/ 2
10 Sheff Wed 4/ 1
=11 Leeds 3/ 5
=11 Wolves 3/ 5
13 Huddersfield 3/ 3
14 Blackburn 3/ 1
15 Preston North End 2/ 6
16 Tottenham Hotspurs 2/ 5
17 Derby County 2/ 3
18 Burnley 2/ 2
19 Portsmouth 2/ 0
plus one of Ipswich, Notts Forest, Sheff Utd, West Brom (all 1/ 2).

05 Oct 2017 11:03:18
Middlesbrough, charlton, nottingham forest and leeds are the few clubs with immense history.

05 Oct 2017 11:29:56
It's probably very age dependant on what people class as a big club that can fill stadiums and create interest, teams like Forrest, Leeds and Sheffield we'd would be to me but to someone younger they may see them as mid table 2nd tier teams . I'd probably think teams like that and add Newcastle Everton and villa and if a rich russian or an Arab sheikh poured money in by the hundreds of millions and they would replicate city or Chelsea easily in terms of fan base .
I think it's hard to deny football fans around the world like to hook onto teams that win things and yet some of the teams on that list have won little or nothing yet remain pretty well followed.

05 Oct 2017 12:16:14
Or how about ranking teams in order of league titles won and ascribing that a value, then ranking them in terms of stadium capacity (we're assuming here that most teams - barring city - would sell out their ground in the top division) and ascribing that a value of equal weight. Finally, add the two together and you get:

1 Man Utd
2 Arsenal
3 Liverpool
4 Man City
=5 Sunderland
=5 Aston Villa
7 Everton
=8 Newcastle
=8 Chelsea
10 Spurs
11 Sheff Wed
12 Leeds
13 Derby
14 Wolves
15 Blackburn
16 West Ham
17 Sheff Utd
18 Leicester
19 Carfiff
20 Southampton
21 Notts Forest
22 Ipswich
23 Middlesbrough
24 Huddersfield
25 WBA
=26 Preston
=26 Charlton
=28 Coventry
=28 Bristol City
30 Burnley

I did the top 30 to show who narrowly misses out. Actually, what I did was slightly more complicated than what I described above but that's the gist. Anyway, no model's perfect for something like this, obviously.

PS. Yes, it's a slow workday.

05 Oct 2017 12:48:15
It always amazes how Newcastle are considered a big club. Based on attendance. In a one club city.

05 Oct 2017 12:50:29
Jeff I think just you and Brian Cox can follow that list.

05 Oct 2017 13:10:23
Interesting post KG,
My own subjectively biased list will be as follows:
Quite similar to yours.
1) Manchester United
2) Liverpool
3) Arsenal
4) Chelsea
5) Tottenham
6) Man City
7) Everton
8) Newcastle
9) West Ham
10) Stoke
11) Southampton
12) Sunderland
13) Aston Villa
14) Bolton Wanderers
15) Leeds
16) Birmingham City
17) MIddlesborough
18) Blackburn Rovers
19) Fulham
20) Leicester

Since you said PL I wouldn't bother about omitting Forest.

05 Oct 2017 13:12:09
Depends on your criteria Mort trophies won recently then they aren't but their 20th most valuable team on earth, they have won 4 titles 6 cups and a European trophy, there ground is one of the largest and fan base huge if we discount some of their titles as to long ago do u discount some of utds aswell .
I'd class them as a big club but not a successful club but I see yr point if trophies defines what is a big club then they aren't .

05 Oct 2017 14:59:25
They're classed as big based on filling a 50k stadium. But there next nearest club is Sunderland so its fairly easy to attract fans. What grates is just how they and others think that their big. Clubs like Leeds, Forest and Villa are bigger clubs.

05 Oct 2017 15:25:03
Well it's a one club city Mort but just 250000 live there, there are nearly 9 million in London and 2 and a half million in Manchester area .
If we class modern football as the start of the prem league which suits us, Newcastle have the 8 th most points way ahead of city . They have finished 2nd twice which is as high and often more or less as spurs and Liverpool and higher than Everton have managed, they have been in the champions league a similar amount as spurs, been in two cup finals and broke the world transfer record, consistently had high crowds and have the 20th highest value in the world, to me it does make them a big club just not a successful one.

05 Oct 2017 14:18:19
Noted with thanks Ed002 🙏.

05 Oct 2017 22:02:32
How abput ranking them in alphabetical order?

05 Oct 2017 23:18:40
City has had a very high attendance in the league for many years now.

05 Oct 2017 23:42:40
Man city's attendance at home has been poor last few years.

06 Oct 2017 01:10:00
Last season Man City had average attendance of over 54000, their stadium capacity is 55100, that is over 98% attendance. But yeah i guess that's really really bad.

{Ed001's Note - that's is how many tickets they sold, not the actual attendance, which is much lower. Many season ticket holders only go if and when, the same problem as many clubs to be fair, but are counted as attending.}

06 Oct 2017 07:12:39
Apologies yes that's what i meant.

The amount of seats actually filled.

06 Oct 2017 08:24:59
yeah i know that, but like you say that is nothin special for City. I know they have some trouble with selling out early cup games and had a really bad one against some German team (munchengladbach? ) were they only sold a little over 30k tickets, but it sounds like people actually think there are 20000 empty seats every match. There are other teams in England with more empty seats than City. It was not my intention to argue and be a douche, i just found the "most teams -barring city- would sell out there stadium" abit funny when they avg tickets sold are 98% +, but it was stoupid of me calling it attendance.

06 Oct 2017 12:23:38
Come on Stoupid, play the game. Next you'll be saying they don't live in a council house and their supporters don't all come from Stockport.

06 Oct 2017 23:07:36
Stoupid. The City game you were referring to where 20,000 seats were empty was against some unknown German minnows by the name of Bayern Munich. Emptihad is empty.

08 Oct 2017 07:15:06
Really wasn't trying to be patronizing, or get mocking results. I thought it was a legitimate, albeit vague, question. I learned a lot, for instance Sheff Wednesday had a lot of support, and i discounted Leicester despite their title because of their short time within my lifetime, but others were adamant they belonged.

Leeds was the one I struggled with. I was just coming up when they were dropping down, so besides a historical rivalry with United, Leeds have never figured much in my first division thinking.

Like the debate, keep it up.

04 Oct 2017 17:56:31
I work for bt and today Robbie savage came to the office for a promotion thing, got a couple of minutes to chat to him and a picture or two. thoroughly nice bloke asked him about his time at united which was interesting, and also his thoughts on the title this season. for some reason he seems to edge us, I didn't state I was a united fan so no reason for him to say whatever to please me but thinks our strength in attackers will pip city to the title as well as our better and less shakey defence. Not the greatest pundit but nowhere near the worst. Good lad by all accounts!

Agree2 Disagree2

04 Oct 2017 18:50:50
I always thought he wasn't a tit but I heard him on the radio and all the bluster and flashiness is to mask how insecure he is, I heard a completely different side to him. Still, I did take him apart on 606 once.

04 Oct 2017 20:29:48
Tell me you have a link for that AJH?!

04 Oct 2017 20:49:45
Sadly not. He was giving Rooney a hard time after he swore into the camera a few years ago. He was banging on about how his son had seen it and Rooney was a poor role model. After an hour of this I rang I and asked him which player had been booked the most times in EPL history (at the time) . "Me" he said. I then asked him which player admitted in his autobiography cheating to get another player sent off. "Me" he said. Spot on Robbie, Rooney is the least of your son's worries mate, it's his Dad he should be worrying about.

04 Oct 2017 21:01:10
Never forget what Keane said,

“I rang Mark Hughes. Robbie [Savage] wasn’t in the Blackburn team and I asked Mark if we could try to arrange a deal. Sparky said: ‘Yeah, yeah, he’s lost his way here but he could still do a job for you. ’ Robbie’s legs were going a bit but I thought he might come up to us [at Sunderland], with his long hair, and give us a lift – the way Yorkie [Dwight Yorke] had, a big personality in the dressing room. Sparky gave me permission to give him a call. So I got Robbie’s mobile number and rang him. It went to his voicemail: ‘Hi, it’s Robbie – whazzup! ’ like the Budweiser ad. I never called him back. I thought: ‘I can’t be ****ing signing that. ’”.

04 Oct 2017 22:37:45
Robbie savage is awful, awful pundit awful commentator.

Most ex professionals are terrible pundits, bt sports have some of the worst pundits/ commentators.

It seems the biggest broadcasters believe former professionals are worthy of being pundits, half of them only know how to play and know nothing about the game. Or how to speak.

05 Oct 2017 12:50:35
Wasn't there a BT game recently where Robbie Savage was joined by Michael Owen and Owen Hargreavesx. Travesty.

I don't know who is the worst of the three. Hargreaves is that bloke who if you told him you've been to Tenerife, he's been on an all inclusive trip to Elevenerife. Top prick that bloke.

05 Oct 2017 16:26:41
Who would you have in their stead MDL 10?

04 Oct 2017 17:20:18
Anything regardless the contracts of mata, hererra and fellaini?

Agree0 Disagree0

Former Liverpool Managers Part 1 - The Beginning

04 Oct 2017 15:50:52
{Ed's Note - we have posted a new article entitled, Former Liverpool Managers Part 1 - The Beginning

Agree0 Disagree0

04 Oct 2017 16:16:42
I take it's all in black and white. Have you got anything that will play on a tv made after the 80's.

05 Oct 2017 02:37:37
There's a short colour segment tagged on the end about a Spanish waiter, a £35m thoroughbred donkey, a canabalistic finisher and an ultimately unsuccessful slippery midfielder 😂.

04 Oct 2017 03:08:45
Given how well Lukaku has started and with Zlatan to return, would it be feasible to have Zlatan at 10 for fee games. With his superlative technique i am sure he will slot in perfectly. He is a combination of Fellaini with his physicality and Mkhitaryan with his finesse. I say he could be lethal with pace around him.

Agree1 Disagree5

04 Oct 2017 14:25:53
My only concern is, would Zlatan disrupt the rhythm of the team?
Would he accept being second fiddle to Lukaku and even start on the bench more often.

04 Oct 2017 15:23:56
The 10 needs to be able to make up the numbers in cm ibra won't do that.
To play ibra and lukaku it would have to be 2 up top with ibra as the second striker.

04 Oct 2017 15:50:19
Is a 3-5-2 a possibility? We have the perfect wide men for it. Valencia and Young. Jones, Lindelof and Bailly? Pogba and Matic with Mikhitaryan linking midfield and attack. Would mean no Rash or Martial. I'm not sure I'd like that.

04 Oct 2017 16:56:17
I worry that he will be shoehorned in irrespective of how we are playing. As an impact sub, starter when Lukaku is rested, he has a role but I don't see a front 2 working.

04 Oct 2017 17:19:24
I thought he might have some sort of coaching role tagged on at some point. Zlatan definitely has a role to play but it's going to be more from the bench for height and experience or when Lukaku is injured or rested.

04 Oct 2017 21:51:51
He surely has to be a back up, plan b.

To be there as an alternative to Lukaku on days when it's either not going his way or when he is need of a rest. Or if we are chasing a game, last 10 mins, stick him up top with lukaku and fellaini. See who wins the headers then?

That'd be a nightmare trio for any backline with 10 minutes to go and long balls being pumped up.

05 Oct 2017 01:09:10
In typical situations Zlatan can sub in for Lukaku with a lead, or if we're losing/ tied and the opposition is sitting back, let both of them loose in the box for crosses. He will start the occasional match, no doubt, but I think how obviously better the entire team plays without him in the lineup means that he'll be a situational player, like Chicharito was at times in his career. This assumes no serious injuries. I like my chances with a 1-1 match in the 89th minute with a corner for which we have in the box Pogba, Jones, Bailly, Matic, Fellaini, Rashford, Lukaku and Zlatan.

Truth is teams are now realizing that pushing up against our counterattack is tantamount to suicide. We're going to see more and more park the bus defenses, and for that I think Zlatan will be a perfect sub.

06 Oct 2017 16:28:38
Is that "The Sydney"?

03 Oct 2017 21:59:56
I know its a 12 days away but who would everybody kike to see play left back against Liverpool?
Salah is a big threat in behind.
If we play a flat 4 i would like to see young there.
Even if he does play 3 cbs i'd still like to see young as the left wingback.
Martial will be well rested with no intl football so i expect hin to be starting too.
I suppose that at this point all we can hope for is that all the players come back with a clean bill of health and not having played 180 mins and are knackered. Hopefully pogba will be the only player unavailable.
The opportunity to go 10 pints clear of them after 8 games is one i'm sure jose will want to take.

Agree4 Disagree0

03 Oct 2017 22:37:09
I can't see him playing Blind there with his pace. I think it will be a back four of Young Smalling Bailly Valencia. All four are pretty quick.

I think mourinho will play with them sat back. Playing a high line would be suicide.

03 Oct 2017 23:25:26
Yeah, if Shaw isn't match fit, and Blind's lack of pace an issue, it really has to be Younf, doesn't it? I know Darmian can play there, and I like his wily, sometimes underhand Italian style of defending, but Young has rarely put a foot wrong since he came back, so he has to be the one.

03 Oct 2017 23:34:57
On recent evidence it has to be young, but there is a chance he'll go Darmian for a more defensive setup, which I would hate by the way.

We can hurt their dodgy defence if we take it to them, I just hope we actually do that rather than revert to any negative tactics. For me the measure of a United side is how we set out at anfield and the etihad. Both games last season were slightly embarrassing so I hope we can apply our new found confidence this year.

04 Oct 2017 09:19:15
I think quite differently, I feel with Salah you need a proper defender. Having someone who is quick such as Young isn't going to help much unless he is a savvy defender as well. Salah is quicker than Young too, so Young's recovery pace isn't going to be enough is Salah gets in behind him.

I've watched nearly every game over the last few years and I can't remember Blind ever really letting us down defensively, sure in his first year he was a little shakey at times. Particularly in midfield. But I've seen him play against Lukaku and keep him in his back pocket when everyone said he would be bullied by the Belgian. I've seen him up against players such as Walker or Sterling when the precieved idea was he would be done for pace and yet he snuffed them out completely.

Against Liverpool I feel we should go with either Blind or Darmian at LB. Someone who first and foremost knows how to defend properly. Blind would be my choice as I feel his passing from deep could set off quick counters against Liverpool who like to play a high line and don't have the best recovery pace. With players like Lukaku, Rashford and Martial we need players with the ability to play quick accurate passing over the top and in behind. Blind for me does this far better than Young or Darmian, and he is a better defender than Young.

For me Darmian is the guy you turn to purely for a defensive full back, Young is your quick offensive full back who can get in behind and get accurate crosses into the box and Blind is solid defensively with a great football brain and the technical ability to play passes out from the back.

For me Blind should probably be our first choice LB this season with Young and Darmian pitching in from time to time. Hopefully Shaw gets a chance to prove himself and he takes it. If not then we need to look for a new LB next summer.

04 Oct 2017 10:30:00
Agree Shappy that Blind is a 'happy medium' between young and darmian in terms of attacking v defending, but that is pretty strong praise for Blind as a left back.

Don't get me wrong I've always liked him and for me he did a sterling job at centre half, but his performances at left back this season have been pretty ordinary. Still I'd agree with you he'd probably the sensible choice (I do not want to start Darmian) .
It's all relative though as LB is a real weakness of a positIon for us whoever plays.

What I do not want to see at anfield is our wide attackers playing as auxiliary full backs!
The most insurance I want to see is Herrera in as an extra midfielder, possibly in for Mata. Though a back three is also a distinct possibility from Jose for this game.

04 Oct 2017 11:36:19
I disagree Shappy. I understand your arguments but Blind and Darmian offer very little from full back and I think both have been outshone by Young this season.

Young has a good football brain but he also more dynamic and mobile. I think he plays with well controlled aggression and offers us much more fluidity on the left than the other two.

On top of that he is the only player we have who can put in a decent cross and we have seen what a difference that makes.

Hopefully Jones will be fit because his pace and tackling will be useful to support Young against Mane.

04 Oct 2017 11:42:14
Rave, I don't think I've over egged it by saying I can't remember Blind letting us down. I'm sure he has made mistakes in games as everyone does, but I can't remember any that have cost us points.

He is a solid steady eddy, like O'Shea before hand. Someone who doesn't let you down, but you know you could get a better player in that position. But until we sign a better left back I see Blind as the best person for that position within our squad.

04 Oct 2017 13:08:17
Darmian will play in games like this as he's a defensive full back. Young will play in games like Palace as he's more attacking we won't be expecting to defend too much. I foresee Darmian in this game and a new player in the summer.

04 Oct 2017 16:48:25
Young's crossing could be a deciding factor. Especially with big target men.

04 Oct 2017 17:01:22
Nah Shappy, I'm not having that. I have no problem with Blind; like you say he is a consistantly solid and dependable player. Good to have in the squad but has nowhere near enough mobility which really restricts his influence from that position (bar a few wonder passes such as to Van Persie in the WC) .

In the few games this season where Young has played we have looked a lot better. I think he combines well with Rashford both going forward and defending.

I don't think we should go all out at Liverpool, my view is we would be better soaking up pressure then getting at them on the break. If we agree it would be foolish to leave Liverpool space in behind, I think Young is perfectly capable at keeping the team's shape and defending deep. In fact it seems to me he is more of a leader and organiser than Blind or Darmian plus he's definately better at breaking forward.

04 Oct 2017 17:20:50
I'll bring my boots and take one for the team. A Mane style challenge, going for the ball of course.

04 Oct 2017 17:40:53
Mancman, Young has made us look much better going forward. But that should be a given with him being an offensive player by nature. But his tendency to push forward leaves space in behind him. You have to consider that as yet we haven't played a top side, so he hasn't been tested defensively yet. Liverpool were the better team against City until the sending off. It will be a tough match, Mane and Salah as well as Coutinho. We will need to be tight defensively.
That's why for me, playing Blind who will tuck in on the left and provide an extra body in the box is vital. We cannot afford to have two adventurous full backs against Liverpool's attack. Bare in mind both Valencia and Young have spent most of their careers as wingers. To play both of them is to go into a match against one of the best attacks in the league with only two natural defenders. I don't think that will end well. Liverpool always up their game against us. For me we should go with a back four of Valencia, Bailly, Jones and Blind. Otherwise we would be playing into Liverpool's hands and expose our flanks.

04 Oct 2017 19:20:15
Consider yourself told mancman. You will just have to wait for sat week to be proven right😁.

05 Oct 2017 08:58:22
I don't think I've been told anything Ken. Shappy and I agree it would be better not to leave Liverpool space in behind on the flanks.

My solution to that is for the whole team to play deep and compact.

I just think because Young is more mobile and skilful than Blind he would be better when we do gain possession and can break on Liverpool. His combinations with Rashford on the left are a good attacking outlet. I also think Young has a good football brain and will be able to follow instructions if he is told to be sit more than usual.

I would actually rather play with Young at LB and Darmian at RB if you want one of the full backs to be more defensive. At least if Young gets forward he can put in a decent cross. Unlike Valencia where there is no point in him going forward anyway because nothing ever comes of it.

03 Oct 2017 21:43:07
I saw a report today that Jones was sent home from the England party injured. Is he likely to be fit for the Liverpool game does anybody know?
I think he has done really well and formed a good partnership with bailly so far this season. He has taken his chace well and has resoonded to the signing of lindelof really well and on the evidence so far rightly keeping him out of the team.

Agree1 Disagree0

03 Oct 2017 09:06:51
Watching the replay against palace and actually felt we have a really good player in Matic. He controls well and distributes ball superbly. Of course he is not the fastest in pace but he sees and anticipates balls well. Obviously there are some mistakes but doesn't cause any major worry.
Just happy that he joined us and now gives us comfort in that area. We have good options to play alongside him too.
No doubt Palace didn't play that well but there is good flow in the team play. Very happy. Now to ensure we consolidate our position with a win at Anfield.

Agree8 Disagree0

03 Oct 2017 20:31:27
No doubt Matic is one of the best buys this season.

03 Oct 2017 20:58:52
Calm, efficient, leads by example. A midfield of his ilk has been missing in the UTD team for a while. Great buy so far.


Manchester United Banter

Manchester United Banter 2

Manchester United Banter 3

Manchester United Banter 4

Manchester United Banter 5

Manchester United Banter 6

Manchester United Banter 7

Manchester United Banter 9

Manchester United Banter 10

Manchester United Banter Archives

Posting / Reply Form

To post you must be logged in with a username. Please Log In or Register for a username.






Posting / Reply Form

To post you must be logged in with a username. Please Log In or Register for a username.






Log In or Register to post

Remember me

Forgot Pass