The Case FOR Matic

This topic contains 123 replies, has 23 voices, and was last updated by  happyhurling 6 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 101 through 120 (of 124 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1499816
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    He’s a self confessed pessimist.
    @happyhurling – I am NOT a pessimistic. Care to rethink your “self confessed” comment.

    His views take onboard the negative well before they consider the positive.

    So a view that incorporates both negative and positive is a pessimistic one in your English dictionary.

    It’s a bit like your tight mate at the bar
    Its more like the mate standing behind you at the bar saying “There’s no fucking chance of happy buying these”. Am I pessimist or have I been studying the form book?

    You once said ………

    I still think there are two fundamentally different types on this forum. Those who enjoy, feel uplifted and grateful to support the club and those who stare into their half empty pint and wonder why they bought it and who the fuck is buying the next one!!

    If the landlord serves me a “half empty pint”, I do moan, especially when he’s charging top dollar for it. That you feel “grateful” suggests to me you didn’t buy it. And if you did then it simply means you’re a beer mug.

    #1499867

    Manthistle
    Participant
    • :

    I have to agree with Mac’s view that I would rather concentrate on trying to build a squad that will go on to dominate for years to come rather than buy a ready made player at the peak of his game, scrape the title then have a year of rebuilding, move an older player and replace with another peak player.

    We shouldn’t be buying any players over the age of 25. If you have a mix of players ranging from 18 to say 32 and you replace your 32 year old with a new younger model you will always maintain that mixture of youth and experience, your turnover of players will be relatively small and you’ll benefit from the longevity of the squad. If you replace a 32 year old with a say 28 year old he’ll need replacing in 3-4 years time which ends up with a high turnover of players resulting in no longevity of squad and constant periods of rebuilding.

    #1499873
    redblood
    redblood
    Participant
    • :

    Mac-I cannot see it myself tbh pal,and exactly because of the money in the PL nobody will be able to dominate.There are @ least 6 teams capable of winning the title,plus a Leicester City now and again.Just look at United and City and how much money both spend!.I would not even rule out Everton this year myself!You can spend as much as you like on players,but as we can all see it there is a lack of top,top players available!.R.Sterling is a typical example costing close to £70m,J.Stones another close to £60m,etc!.

    #1499882
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @Mathistle – Hooray, at least somebody got the concept albeit you are off on the ages. The 18 year old cannot replace the 32 year old. Ideally we need the 18 year old youth, the 23 rising star and 30 year old fading star.

    Look at RvP. He won us the title but barely a couple of years later he’s off and we’re left needing to fix the striker position to the point of signing a stopgap. Had we got a 24 year old instead of RvP we’d be alright now.

    #1499887
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @redblood – Forget Leicester, that was a freak. Yes you are right it boils down to the money AND thats why there is realistically just City Chelsea and us, depending on Glazer policy.

    Yes a well drilled, motivated team from a smaller club can do well but its hard and the moment they do the big clubs will offer their players silly wages to move on. Wengers young side with Fabregas has chance but the big clubs took their players. Real Madrid took Bale and should they move for Kane he’d be off.

    #1499895
    hatters
    hatters
    Participant
    • :

    @MacGuffine & Manthistle.

    I agree with both of you that we shouldn’t be buying players over 25 because if the constant rebuilding that will be required as the two of you mentioned. The two of you are proposing what I think should happen ideally but the reality is very different my friends.

    For us to make sure that a complete squad overhaul is done, we have to buy the very hottest prospects around the ages of 20-24. The problem with buying these players is that there are many other clubs out there that we will have to fend off. Clubs that can pay the same money and still offer better lifestyle and better teammates. We also aren’t working with an unlimited budget as I mentioned before. The cost of the best young players in the world is about 60 million and above. Pogba cost us 89 million. Morata is quoted at 70 million, Lukaku at 70 odd million. If we assume for a moment that the best young players in the world will forego an opportunity to join Real Madrid, PSG, or Barcelona the my shopping list would look something like this:

    – Dybala (80 million)
    – Varane (70 million)
    – Fabinho (50 million)
    – Ousemane Dembele (80 million)
    – Mbappe (100 million)

    Even ignoring the fact that these players would have better options, we simply cannot afford to buy the best young players for a dynasty. We are no longer a force in this market – we are a big player but not a force. The playing ground is more level.

    Basically what I am saying is that your proposition is impossible in my view. This is why we are having to scout better for players like Lindelof and Bailly. We are having to cut corners and target players like Perisic instead of going on a wild goose chase after Dembele.

    We have to box clever here.

    #1499904
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @hatters – That there is competition for top young players is to be expected. Others can offer the same money and lifestyle but then it comes down to gametime, role and the “project”. Nobody is suggesting its easy. BUT that should be the primary target and none of the “no value” bullshit which caused us to miss out on Hazard when we were in for him. AND with better scouting (ie eye for a player) we could get them before they become hot prospects.

    Regarding money, in the long term a record breaking Rio or Rooney turns out to be cheap. I’m sure Pogba will turn out the same. Yes we need the cheaper buys like Bailly and Lindelof. I’ve no problem with that. BUT 40m on a 29 year old is another kettle of fish.

    Yes we have to box clever but for me clever means making a good investment.

    #1499919
    HailMartial
    HailMartial
    Participant
    • :

    @manthistle – While I agree with what @macguffin is saying as it’s logically very sound, there seems to be an impression among some posters that Mourinho isn’t doing exactly that and is focusing just on obtaining immediate results and is being negligent of the future.

    This debate over which way to build a team is better has originally stemmed from Matic and Perisic being the perceived targets rather than investing in younger talented models. However, the other two Mourinho targets, Morata and Lindelof, are both under 25, creating a balance. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, Mourinho has revamped our academy and scouting network, has tended to our current crop of fledglings with potential, is recruiting a mixture of youth (under 25) while mixing it with seasoned players. Rather than building for the now or for the future, Mourino’s working on getting the blend right so that he can rebuild Man Utd into an empire (I hope).

    If Matic, Perisic are bought and are added to the addition of Miki, you’d have to imagine they’d only give us 3-4 years of top quality and are, to an extent, a short term investment. However, a four year cycle was the extent of life a team had, according to SAF, before it had to be rebuilt. Even if you look at a Messi centred Barcelona as a recent example, it’s a theory that seemingly holds true. Our own 99 team had the same approx. shelf life.

    If you focus on obtaining players who are just talented potential, then what if only three of the eleven actually prove their worth? As an example of potential (under 25) that we’ve bought – De Gea, Rafael, Ferdinand, Smalling, Evra, Anderson, Kleberson, Bebe, Nani, Depay, Ronaldo.

    I could have mentioned Rooney, I could have also mentioned Obertan or Bellion. My point is that I would say only 4 out of those 11 bought were worth the investment. There’s no way in guaranteeing a player will be worth the purchase. Take our young treble winning team; we added three players to that squad for that season – Stam (26), Yorke (27), and Blomqvist (24).

    Striking the right balance is key to building a successful team. That way, young players from the academy can be integrated and phased in to the first team, and when it comes to rebuilding the squad, only tweaking (3-4 players) is required rather than making wholesale changes.

    Mourinho is going about the job in the right manner and I don’t think he’s thinking short-term, though how much success he has may determine his length of stay. But even if he was to leave us at the end of his contract, the work he’s doing indicates that he won’t be leaving us in the lurch.

    #1499922

    nil
    Participant
    • :

    @macguffin
    @hatters

    Regarding money, in the long term a record breaking Rio or Rooney turns out to be cheap. I’m sure Pogba will turn out the same. Yes we need the cheaper buys like Bailly and Lindelof. I’ve no problem with that. BUT 40m on a 29 year old is another kettle of fish.

    Yes we have to box clever but for me clever means making a good investment“.

    Interesting discussion, and it inspires contemplation for me.

    Firstly, I emphatically agree with this: “Yes we have to box clever but for me clever means making a good investment”. For me, there’s almost no end to what we could afford to buy considering a long term perspective and prospective turnover that the “right” signing brings to the table: Ferdinand, Rooney, RVN, Pogba (even Ronaldo was a tad pricey for a then relatively unknown 17-year old).

    For the record, I’m very much in favour of the 25-approach (since this has apparantly become the bench mark of when you’re a team that favours betting on young players) where you seek to build a squad around players that can be with the club for 6-9 years.

    It’s my opnion, though, that it’s one among other possible business plans for leading a football club to success. Another is to primarily go for RvP-type players: 27-29 years old, proven players, able to hit the ground running and create instant success. Examples include RVP, Sheringham, Suarez (to Barca), RvN (to Real), Evra (to Juve – bit too old, I know, but still a success).

    Of course, like with younger players, you need to buy the right ones. If you buy 18-23 year old players, you need to pick that talent that will acutally develop into a consitently performing 1st team member, and with RvP-types, you need to pick the ones that will actually have an interest and a drive to become a success and not just players in the market for a last, fat paycheck.

    Both types of approaches, or business plans, if you will, have advantages and disadvantages, but they are alternatives. The latter being what gained Real a lot of success in the late ’90s and early 00’s. Bought Zidane at 29 years old, Figo at 28 years old, Beckham at 28 years old, Makalele at 27 years old and so on. They perform for 3 years, and then you buy the next batch of RvP-types. Bluntly put, of course.

    For me, the long term, 25-year old approach is just more interesting, in a number of ways, even if those marquee signings do attract a lot of attention.

    #1499928

    Manthistle
    Participant
    • :

    HailMartial – I agree in that as a new manager Mourinho is trying to get the right balance in the squad so he may see buying a 29 year old Matic as a short term option but that may only be because the current options are that poor. He may think get Matic now and either promote TFM when the time comes or scout an up and coming star in the making.

    I wouldn’t say we have to sign players who only have potential because, as you say, what if a number of them don’t reach that potential. But I think if you sign a 22-25 year old they must be showing that they are on their way to becoming a top player.

    You highlight Stam, Yorke and Blomqvist as examples of buying over the 25 limit and having it pay off, however I would counter that by asking how long did each of them last at the club? 3 or 4 years max? That’s what you get when you buy ‘older’ players.

    #1499929

    Manthistle
    Participant
    • :

    MacGuffin – I agree. When the 32 year old is ready to be moved on hopefully the rising star is now 25-26 and ready to take over. You then have your youngster who is now 22-23 who becomes the rising star and you invest in a new 18 year old with potential. The cycle then continues in a perfect world.

    #1499930

    Manthistle
    Participant
    • :

    Lets not forget too that we’re just talking about buying players here. We should still be looking to bring through players like Rashford, Pogba & Co. on a regular basis and promote from within.

    #1499934
    HailMartial
    HailMartial
    Participant
    • :

    @manthistle – I agree that to buy a 22-25 year old would always be the preference and to make such an investment, the player must be showing that they’re on the right path, however, you just never know if they’ll settle- Veron being an example that springs to mind. 25/26 year old signing, regarded at the time as one of the world’s best players, he was as close to a guarantee as you could get but he just never adapted. I make that point to illustrate that someone who had fulfilled his potential couldn’t justify the price tag, so it has to be accepted that no-one can accurately predict a transfer’s success. It’s still a lottery, so better to hedge your bets, so to speak.

    And, yes, you’re right, those treble players only did last 3-4 years max, but, then we replaced Stam with Ferdinand (Blanc as a stop gap), Yorke with Ruud Van Nistlerooy, and Blomqvist with … Chadwick? :). The team was tweaked and entered a new cycle. I personally hold the view that no full team can stay the same for 5-10 years, so the best you can do is just tweak it when required to maintain a high standard.

    #1499935
    HailMartial
    HailMartial
    Participant
    • :

    @manthistle – agreed. The players we have: Rashford, Martial, etc need to be considered first.

    #1499959
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @manthistle – You identify the ideal cycle and of course its hard to get the ideal in practice but nonetheless it should be the objective.

    And the key is ….. IF either the 18 yo or the 22-23 yo are not progressing as hoped, you have to cut your losses, sell and replace. IF you dont you end up in a situation like when Rio Vidic retired and people were expecting Smalling Jones to step into their shoes.

    @nil – As I said in another post, there are no guarantees the older player will hit the groung running. We must allow a year to settle in and get used to playing in a new team for a new manager.

    The difference between young and old is the young has time to settle in and can be expected to improve. The old does not have time and can be expected to deteriorate. PLUS with older players the risk of injury greater.

    #1500042
    Zico
    Zico
    Participant
    • :

    Matic is short term but dont worry guys. If he chrashes out we have Carrick to take over.
    According to himself he tries to copy Giggsy and play to his fourties.

    Is Morata done deal?
    Could be a good signing,time will tell.

    Dont love the idea to have Matic,Fellaini,Pogba and Herrera as sour midfield.
    Slow as fuck.

    #1500056
    hatters
    hatters
    Participant
    • :

    @macguffin. Agreed. We should be aiming to buy the best young players with a view to building a team that will be able to dominate for a long period.

    As Hail Martial has already explained, however, I also believe that this is what Mourinho and Woodward are trying to do but the market is dictating different terms to what we want.

    If I want a house in Surrey but my budget doesn’t speak to my dream home then perhaps I need to ignore some amenities after the fact, even though my wife might want the trimmed hedges and the yard space – perhaps I will need a stop gap, maybe a couple of years in Paddington before we go to Surrey. If I want a BMW M3 but I don’t have the budget then I might have to settle for the BMW 340 with the M-Performance kit (perhaps even second hand). It is what it is.

    #1500067
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    If I want a house in Surrey but my budget doesn’t speak to my dream home
    @hatters – I love property analagies. If you are a Glazer its simple. You mortgage up to the hilt then skimp on property maintenance for a decade until inflation makes the mortgage repayments affordable out of your pay packet. That the property becomes so run down that you need a kings ransom to rennovate is unimportant. You do that over the next decade. Repair the plumbing this year, the leaky roof next year etc.

    If I want a BMW M3 but I don’t have the budget then I might have to settle for the BMW 340
    And by next year the resale value of the BMW 340 is peanuts and you are in the same situation of not having enough money to get the BMW M3.

    Personally, I’d keep going to work on my bike for another year then I would have the money. Alternatively I’d do what the Glazers do, borrow and get the car on the never never !

    Alternatively, you buy the parts and build one yourself. It’ll be cheaper and you get a custom car just how you want it that will increase in value. You can sell that and get the BMW M3.

    #1500123

    homerjay540
    Participant
    • :

    Just to put on record as i think i may have been a little misunderstood…
    While I have said I don’t mind us signing more experienced players (like Perisic and Matic), for the most part this should be restricted to last summer and this summer.
    I do want us to be signing only the best young players but first (i think) we need to have a winning team to bring them into. Ideally going forward we would then sign two or three of the best young players going every summer and get a good 10 years out of them. Obviously there will be the odd exception to this.

    #1500170
    hatters
    hatters
    Participant
    • :

    @macguffin. Fair enough mate. The property and car analogies have brought us closer to a meeting of minds.

    In my opinion, you continue to dictate what we should do in an ideal situation. I also agree with you on the desired approach to team building.

    The thing is, however, I believe that the ideal approach is impossible because we simply are not as powerful as we used to be. The game has changed.

    Continuing our property analogy, if I bought my house in Surrey 10 years ago and I was a bigwig at the time; it doesn’t mean I am impervious to a younger, talented IT entrepreneur reserving the best table at the nearest top restaurant before me. The very same table that I always had ready for me.

Viewing 20 posts - 101 through 120 (of 124 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.