• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Circus ManUnitus - Nobody's At The Wheel

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I like Maguire, and I think he would thrive in a side like City.

Stones? Reaching the point of no redemption for me. Obviously talented, has potential, but is at the stage where its looking like he wont realise that potential. Really needs to shape up or ship out.
Click to expand...

Really don’t get the fuss with Maguire. Seems a good lad and he’s decent but I wouldn’t take him over Toby or Jan and they’re both past their best.
 
MKSpur said:
Stones needs to drop down a level and play every week in a side that needs to defend. In some ways the ability he has on the ball is his weakness as he doesn’t seem to have the awareness of when to play and when not and City is not the pace to learn, let alone from their bench.
Click to expand...

Agreed, he went to City too soon IMO. Still needs an education.


DeanoAustin said:
Really don’t get the fuss with Maguire. Seems a good lad and he’s decent but I wouldn’t take him over Toby or Jan and they’re both past their best.
Click to expand...

I like him, good defender and a ball player too. If Alderweireld left Id be happy with Maguire to come in.

And for a team like City he is probably ideal.
 
MKSpur said:
He could learn a lot from Jan, he has a high technical ability for a centre back and he seems to know when to play and when not. Hopefully Foyth will get the benefit of this as he’s another one who’s almost ‘too good’ to be a CB!
Click to expand...

I may have got this wrong but in the bolded bit are you referring to Stones?, if so i think his problem is he does not know when to play and when not. Over 200 games and he still fudges up on a regular basis.
 
parklane1 said:
I may have got this wrong but in the bolded bit are you referring to Stones?, if so i think his problem is he does not know when to play and when not. Over 200 games and he still fudges up on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
Yes should have been who, so therefore we agree on Stones.

If I’m being honest I think ball playing centre backs are tall central midfielders who weren’t quite good enough to play there at the same level.
 
What a joke that appointment was (as has been proved by his performance during and since).

I called it before he even went there. Arguing he wasnt even doing as well as he could at Everton, let alone showing he wasnt equipped for Utd.

Still amazes me they went for him.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
What a joke that appointment was (as has been proved by his performance during and since).

I called it before he even went there. Arguing he wasnt even doing as well as he could at Everton, let alone showing he wasnt equipped for Utd.

Still amazes me they went for him.
Click to expand...
As the article says:
Perhaps the biggest mistake United made was simply not realising how much the club had grown in stature in the 27 years of Ferguson’s tenure, and that seeking a 1986 solution to a 2013 problem was always going to be risky.

To be fair both his transfers ended up being good value for money compared to his successors - perhaps they should get him back as DOF!
 
Moyes didn't get much support. He wanted Feilani and they missed out on his buy out contract. After failing to buy any one else they returned and paid several millions more they they would have had. That was Moyes' summer support.

In January they bought Mata, but they didn't keep Moyes long enough to see if he could have used him (it took over a year for Moura to make his mark under Poch).

The whole backing of Fergie's decision on future manager was as successful for United as backing him on the horse. Moyes was probably not a good choice, but we didn't see what he could do if properly backed. I have no problem with the opinion that he was not good enough, but do take issue with the argument that his "failure" at United proves it.
 
Maybe it's too much money but it seems they are trying to keep home grown players at the club and it says to me they have faith in Rashford and will give him the chance to establish himself as the main striker rather than the play anywhere forward who's first to be dropped for a big name mercenary.
 
It could be a sign of faith in youth or it could be a sign of Woodward playing to the crowd. Keeping Rashford makes sense, but giving him an "Ozil deal" seems screwy. It's almost as if the deal is about making a point, just like the Ozil one for Arsenal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back