The College Dropout

Morata is a 6th man in basketball terms. Great as a back-up striker for an elite team. But never the main man for an elite team. A lot of Morata's appearances will be off the bench. I would say at least 1 in 5.

The game is going ESL sooner or later. It will happen in increments but it will happen.

Aye. Badly need some pace and real strength in the defence.

It’s so slow. Lacks athleticism.

Aye that game was awful. Great for Roma but it’s good for football that Mourinho is a dwindling force.

I'll be surprised if he wants to change the system. He's gone 4-3-3 and it's been working. I think he'll stick with that as a Plan A.

I don't think he starts over Jorginho, Kante or Kovacic. Spurs maybe because there CM's lack talent. Conte does look a workhorse CM though and not sure Tielemans is good enough off the ball for his liking. I don't think he's good enough technically to cover for his athletic weaknesses at the highest level. But perhaps in a team with more of the ball that would cover for some of his off the ball weaknesses. With Kante increasingly injury prone, I think Chelsea need a more dynamic central midfield option.

He can't.

Would love Raphinha. Him and Trips on the right would be brilliant. Imagine Bruno on that side.

I'm not fond of a pure #10 these days and seemingly Southgate isn't either. But aye, Maddison is the best pure #10 in England. Mount's more tactically flexible and considered a harder worker (no idea if it's true).

Don't recall that. I recall Tiote getting pelters week in week out though. Again, another one that didn't hide, always got on the ball and tried to make things happen. Did his best. Anita always ran from the struggle.

Thing is... he wasn't bad technically in terms of simple passing, first touch. And that level of athleticism is rare even in elite football. So he was useful for 2 different managers in very different sides. Even Mourinho found him useful. He essentially did Joelinton's CM role at those clubs and it largely worked. Think Sissoko was a little tidier in possession (obviously quicker and less strong) but worse in the box or final ball. I like that athletic profile of player in a midfield 3. Agree with you overall. My abiding memory of him is exactly the same.

In that era people on here loved Vurnon Anita. He was awful. Many preferred him to Tiote. It's rare that people have a balanced view on players. Either shit or great.

Aye. He got on the ball and attacked his fullback time and again. Tried to make runs off the ball to attack. That was reflected by most of our play coming from his side that season across 2 managers. he was limited in that role and it didn't work more time. Gini again played in the wrong role. But he didn't get on the ball. That's why I don't look upon him fabourably. He downed tools and couldn't even get in the side. Both were misused by several managers which isn't their fault. They should've played CM together maybe with a 3rd DM or an AM. That would've given us some dynamism in the middle of the pitch. In time both have shown themselves to be decent professionals that can perform at the highest end of pro football within the right setup.

Nah he was ok enough in possession to be a decent "weakest man" on the ball. At NUFC he was expected to be the main man on the ball which was his downfall. IMO I remember him running into blind alleys again and again trying to make stuff happen. Didn't come off often because he wasn't skilful but it's all we had. Him and Janmaat down the right flank. All puff, little end product. Janmaat couldn't defend either. I remember Thauvin on the left or on the bench or when he came on... he was v. quiet. Got on the ball rarely and did little with it. Sissoko got on the ball loads, did little with it too but at least he tried.

In a midfield 3 or in a 2-man 4-2-3-1 Sissoko allowed an actual RW to attack. Covered ground, won possession, passed it to better players and could drive the ball forward and give it to better players. He was always a functional player that we tried to use as a star man. We did the same with Gini & Scott Parker.

Whole thing was funny. Shame Miggy got the stray. He was doing a Pep impression

Aye and Pep likes a small squad so most get a fair amount of games. The only outfield players that didn't get much game time are Nathan Ake & Fernandinho tbf. You wouldn't want to replace him.

He rarely played CM. He first played as an AM, a literal 10.. I got pelters for saying he wasn't good enough technically to play 10 but people claimed he was Pardewed. Anyway that didn't work so moved him to RM. That was okayish. Reflects poorly on our management that Wijnaldum nor Sissoko rarely played CM for us.

Sissoko went from over rated to under rated by people on here. He tried his best and never hid so I always respect him for that.

Largely not true of City. Their fullbacks spend a lot of time in CM positions. And they have the wide forwards super wide a lot of the team to stretch play. Liverpool are different. The fullbacks are forward and wide. We seem to be going the Liverpool route.

Lampard is fortunate that he’s well liked over there. They’ll back him and give him time. His managerial career needs a good season next year imo. Anything too half would be good for them.

But that's a core part of shit football leadership. Make sure you hire yes men in senior positions who won't challenge or rock the boat too much. Nobody at Man U has been fired for a decade of underperformance. I think one dude is finally stepping down but that's it. Charnley wasn't qualfiied for his job but he got it and kept it.

The comparison is awful ownership. - Negligble investment in infrastructure - Leadership mismanagement at every level of the club (CEO all the way down to the football managers). Keeping poor performing leadership staff on the payroll - Using the club for own financial gain - at the detriment of the club (Ashley free sponsorship, SD deals. Glazers all that debt) - Owners minimum sporting targets are well below the minimum targets of the fans. And the owners manage to miss their own targets often enough. The details are different. Sure Man U have spent in the transfer market (and they only did this post-Fergie) but they did nothing to ensure those transfers would equate to good sustained performance on the pitch. I've heard journalists say "Ashley spent £140m in his last 2 seasons at the club. Something like a £90m net spend. What else do we want?" Leadership that tries to ensure money spent is equated to success on the pitch. We overspent on Joelinton and with Bruce in charge it any decent transfer investment would't have shown on the pitch. It's a strawman argument. There are are also worse owners than both in the football pyramid. At least those 2 owners sometimes hit their minimum targets.

Weird argument. If we were in Europe every year under Ashley, we would've been happy with him too.