Chelsea

They’ve got a good roster with talented young players. They’re likely to get Osimhen too next year.

I don’t like United’s roster. Aging stars like Casemiro, Varane and Eriksen; with Bruno approaching his 30’s.

Rashford is always a mystery, Sancho’s career in United isn’t looking salvagable, Antony never showed the potential to become an elite player. Only Hojlund looks like a positive but he’s far from being ready.

Before 2008, this wasn’t a discussion. People would think you’re crazy for comparing these two.

While Xavi always was a capable midfielder, it was Pep to truly play to his strengths. Before Pep, he had to play a more defensive, stationary role behind traditional number 10’s such as Ronaldinho and Deco. But Pep sent Ronaldinho and gave the Xavi-Iniesta duo the freedom to rule the midfield. Without needing to carry the load of a lazy number 10.

Pep knew what Xavi needed, because Pep himself was a very similar player. I mean Pep was more physical and a better holding midfielder, but he too would’ve shined if any manager gave him the role that he gave to Xavi.

All that being said, I’d actually consider Xavi and Pirlo equals. I think Xavi managed to catch up with Pirlo; but I wouldn’t say completely surpassed. Pirlo was just as good of a playmaker, a maestro in the midfield who led his teams to the top.

I thought Chelsea robbed Arsenal and United by selling this duo for a total of 125m Pounds. Personally, I never rated either of these guys. Not just their fees, also their salaries are ridiculously high.

That being said, I can at least understand being fooled by the idea of Havertz. It’s the football equavilant of the “I can save her” syndrome. Havertz looks like a dream on paper. Ridiculously tall and well built, despite his length he looks natural on the ball. He can see the pitch, has the tools to become a good playmaker.

But similar to Joao Felix, those tools just somehow don’t end up creating an effective player on the pitch. So I thought Havertz was a stupid transfer for Arsenal; yet again, I can understand Arteta’s point of view.

However with Mount…can someone please explain to me why has he played for Chelsea and United; while Prowse spent his career in Southampton and now West Ham? Seriously, what do people see in Mount?

He’s a midfielder with below average playmaking skills and technique, a winger with no dribbling and quickness. Hard working but poor defensively so cannot play a holding role.

So what’s the point? What good is his versatility when he’s not suitable for any position whatsoever? What did ETH to get out of him?

One thing I can give him is that he plays a very direct, daring game that could be valuable in high pressing play. You can keep him on that pocket behind the striker, where he can press and make runs to score a goal.

But which contending team is going to give Mount that kind of role? So I think he could do well in a mid table team.

I disagree. Last season was very misleading for United. Not a United fan but I watched the majority of their games last season. They weren’t playing well.

Defensive minded, counter attacking football is not sustainable for clubs aiming for higher spots. ETH’s United never looked powerful, they never controlled games.

Find Bruno in the midfield so he can throw one of those long balls for a counter attack. I swear that is the only attacking option that works for United. This is a very one dimensional team, like they were last season.

Their weak football aside, ETH doesn’t seem to be the solution of United’s toxic dressing room. If anything, things have been worse since he arrived.

Another thing is, a key role of a manager is to improve his players’ performances. Be able to use them in roles where they can show their strengths. Tell me, how many players in United have been improving their game since ETH arrived? The majority of the players are having some of the worst times of their careers.