Mason Mount's Misfortune

Sparky Rhiwabon said:
Can anyone explain to me why we signed Mount? Like, what was the thinking behind it?
Click to expand...

P-Nut said:
I'd love to find out one day what the actual plan was for Mount. From the second we were linked it was obvious he didn't fit the system.
Click to expand...
I think the plan was to have the defenders (particularly Shaw and Martinez) to do a significant amount of the playmaking duties and help out the midfield, allowing us to push one more of our midfielders into an attacking position to increase our threat around the opposition box. So while we were in possession we'd be decreasing our defensive line to increase our attacking line, with the midfield balance staying about the same (just done in a different way).

Not saying it's a good plan, but it's the only thing that makes some kind of sense to me.

Shaw only played two games before getting injured, and Martinez only got five games (and in hindsight was still struggling with his injury). Even in that short time it wasn't really working but it was such a small sample size that it's hard to make a definite call, but once those two got injured there was no chance it was going to work. ETH continued trying to play that way for a few more games without them, but more recently he's started playing the second midfielder a little deeper again which is likely why Mount has been more of a sub.

Once Shaw and Martinez return (or even just Shaw since he'll be back first) It'll be interesting to see if ETH tries to go back to playing two very attacking midfielders, and if so whether Mount will come back in as a starter.
 
MadDogg said:
I think the plan was to have the defenders (particularly Shaw and Martinez) to do a significant amount of the playmaking duties and help out the midfield, allowing us to push one more of our midfielders into an attacking position to increase our threat around the opposition box. So while we were in possession we'd be decreasing our defensive line to increase our attacking line, with the midfield balance staying about the same (just done in a different way).

Not saying it's a good plan, but it's the only thing that makes some kind of sense to me.

Shaw only played two games before getting injured, and Martinez only got five games (and in hindsight was still struggling with his injury). Even in that short time it wasn't really working but it was such a small sample size that it's hard to make a definite call, but once those two got injured there was no chance it was going to work. ETH continued trying to play that way for a few more games without them, but more recently he's started playing the second midfielder a little deeper again which is likely why Mount has been more of a sub.

Once Shaw and Martinez return (or even just Shaw since he'll be back first) It'll be interesting to see if ETH tries to go back to playing two very attacking midfielders, and if so whether Mount will come back in as a starter.
Click to expand...

Yeah I had another think about it after posting that, and I think the plan was the box midfield that everyone is so in favour of at the moment.

But as you say I still don't think that suits us at all as who is the player to step into the midfield and become the 2nd #6 next to Casemiro? Martinez stepping up leaves a back line of Shaw-Varane-AWB. That severely hampers Shaws game and link up with Marcus, and conversely if it was to be Shaw stepping in to midfield we lose his overlapping runs.

The side that made everyone else want to play that way was City, who regularly fielded 4 CBs across the back line leaving a normal 3 CB at the back when Stones stepped into midfield. They are also a complete possession based side, something we can't ever be with Rashford and Bruno in the side.

Sorry this became so long, basically to say that even with everyone playing as they did last season there are still major issues with that tactical set up if that's what we were aiming for
 
Unmitigated disaster of a transfer, and the worst thing is pretty much everyone outside the club saw it coming.
 
Rood said:
He was supposed to be an upgrade on Eriksen and cover for Bruno

It's not so crazy but obviously hasn't worked out for various reasons
Click to expand...
I get the Bruno cover bit but it’s a lot of money to cover a player that plays 90 practically every game.

He doesn’t play the same position as Eriksen though.
 
We signed this guy when we didn’t need him and he’s also injury prone as feck. What were we thinking here? Probably the worst transfer I can remember in a long time.
 
If we had gotten him on a free then fine, he's not a bad player.
But giving him no 7 on top of it all is just sad.
 
pascell said:
I saw it coming too. I hope whoever Ratcliffe brings in as DoF doesn't allow ten Hag to sign who he wants.
Click to expand...

I refuse to believe Mount was 'who he wants' after his time in Ajax and chasing Frenkie De Jong all last summer. More likely the board said sorry mate you can't have that fancy French or Italian wine you asked for but here's some English champagne. It's won awards you know.
 
Telsim said:
Unmitigated disaster of a transfer, and the worst thing is pretty much everyone outside the club saw it coming.
Click to expand...

When you have to watch multiple 30 minute analysis videos from supposed football experts/tacticians, just to help you understand why the guy is actually good, it’s never a good sign.
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
I get the Bruno cover bit but it’s a lot of money to cover a player that plays 90 practically every game.

He doesn’t play the same position as Eriksen though.
Click to expand...
kouroux said:
He is a very much different footballer to Eriksen no ?
Click to expand...

If you look at Eriksen history then he mostly played attacking mid roles just like Mount and even now for Denmark he plays more like #10 and never #8

ETH seems like converting this kind of player into a deeper central midfielder role, even Bruno has been pushed deeper on more than one occasion

Mount has a good engine and is ready to press more than Eriksen can manage at his age so in theory it makes sense but in practice it has not worked out

Still think it's too early to be writing Mount off though
 
P-Nut said:
I'd love to find out one day what the actual plan was for Mount. From the second we were linked it was obvious he didn't fit the system.

If you was to build a side around Mount (I'm not suggesting we should) what would it actually look like? I'm guessing a diamond where he could use his engine to shuttle up and down in one of the wide CM slots.
Click to expand...

I think it would be more him in exactly the same role as we normally play Bruno, which is what makes the signing so baffling. On form he would offer a bit more consistency in terms of ball retention, but less creativity and goal threat. If Bruno had fallen out with Ten Hag then it would've made more sense, but still been a subpar signing as he's the type of player a team trying to break into the European places should be looking at building their team around, not a team trying and failing miserably to get back to winning titles.
 
11101 said:
I refuse to believe Mount was 'who he wants' after his time in Ajax and chasing Frenkie De Jong all last summer. More likely the board said sorry mate you can't have that fancy French or Italian wine you asked for but here's some English champagne. It's won awards you know.
Click to expand...
Different positions really, de Jong was instead of Casemiro as a deep playmaker, Mount is to help press from the front from midfield and keep teams around their third of the pitch, that didn't work as we saw.

kouroux said:
You work for MUFC ?
Click to expand...
No, just saw with my own eyes Mount playing the exact same position and role for England in the WC, that ten Hag would play him in for United and it didn't work at all. There wasn't just me stating that Mount wasn't performing and should have been dropped.

He needs to be further up the pitch as a 10 but we already had Bruno who had that position held down.

I'm actually surprised how injury prone he's been since he's moved to United.
 
pascell said:
Different positions really, de Jong was instead of Casemiro as a deep playmaker, Mount is to help press from the front from midfield and keep teams around their third of the pitch, that didn't work as we saw.


No, just saw with my own eyes Mount playing the exact same position and role for England in the WC, that ten Hag would play him in for United and it didn't work at all. There wasn't just me stating that Mount wasn't performing and should have been dropped.

He needs to be further up the pitch as a 10 but we already had Bruno who had that position held down.

I'm actually surprised how injury prone he's been since he's moved to United.
Click to expand...
Further injuries are to be expected when someone has been out for a few months as Mount was before we acquired him.

That coupled with the obvious issues United has in conditioning of players makes it even less of a surprise.
 
pascell said:
Different positions really, de Jong was instead of Casemiro as a deep playmaker, Mount is to help press from the front from midfield and keep teams around their third of the pitch, that didn't work as we saw.
Click to expand...

That's kind of the point isn't it? We couldn't get the top picks in that position so we got Mount and hoped he could do it. His first few appearances were sitting deep but he was atrocious so he was moved forward, and eventually moved all the way to the bench.
 
There were very few in this forum that wanted him, and that shows how ludicrous it was to spend so much time in the summer chasing him.
 
edgecutter said:
There were very few in this forum that wanted him, and that shows how ludicrous it was to spend so much time in the summer chasing him.
Click to expand...

Spending £60 million on Mount with 5 years left on his contract would have been ludicrous. Spending £60 million on Mount with 1 year left on his contract should be a sackable offence to all that were involved in that deal.

Southgate’s insistence on constantly picking Mount for England used to annoy the shit out of me. A player that just didn’t seem to do anything other than run around.

If he was shit for England why would he suddenly look decent at United. Many of us knew this transfer was a big mistake last summer.
 
11101 said:
I refuse to believe Mount was 'who he wants' after his time in Ajax and chasing Frenkie De Jong all last summer. More likely the board said sorry mate you can't have that fancy French or Italian wine you asked for but here's some English champagne. It's won awards you know.
Click to expand...
There were young players with more 'obvious' profiles in terms of physical power, ability to break the lines, decent passing, ability to play 6 and 8 etc who could have been signed from France or Germany for 20m less and no doubt substantially lower wages. Likewise, if he was so set on a promising no. 8 who he also had some familiarity with, then why not Gravenbach...again for 20m less? Why would the club have vetoed less expensive signings if, as seems to have been the case, they were otherwise backing the manager as far as the budget would stretch? In other words, Mount is almost completely on him - not being able to sign De Jong and only de Jong, of all players is no excuse....
 
ESPN via The Guardian is claiming that we're looking to move him in January.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...manchester-united-looking-move-mason-mount-on

I think it's a long shot, but if it were to happen it'd surely be the most embarrassing piece of transfer business in quite some time.

1. Drastically overpay for a player we didn't need after allowing a rival to hold us over a barrel on the fee
2. Dude barely plays for half a season
3. Sell him at what would surely wind up being a big loss
 
Todd said:
ESPN via The Guardian is claiming that we're looking to move him in January.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...manchester-united-looking-move-mason-mount-on

I think it's a long shot, but if it were to happen it'd surely be the most embarrassing piece of transfer business in quite some time.

1. Drastically overpay for a player we didn't need after allowing a rival to hold us over a barrel on the fee
2. Dude barely plays for half a season
3. Sell him at what would surely wind up being a big loss
Click to expand...
Doubt it's true, but honestly it would be preferable to admit to a transfer failure quickly rather than letting them rot in the squad for several years.
 
Todd said:
ESPN via The Guardian is claiming that we're looking to move him in January.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...manchester-united-looking-move-mason-mount-on

I think it's a long shot, but if it were to happen it'd surely be the most embarrassing piece of transfer business in quite some time.

1. Drastically overpay for a player we didn't need after allowing a rival to hold us over a barrel on the fee
2. Dude barely plays for half a season
3. Sell him at what would surely wind up being a big loss
Click to expand...
Whilst it would be good to take decisive action, this will surely be beyond embarrassing. Arguably should cost people their jobs.
 
Todd said:
ESPN via The Guardian is claiming that we're looking to move him in January.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...manchester-united-looking-move-mason-mount-on

I think it's a long shot, but if it were to happen it'd surely be the most embarrassing piece of transfer business in quite some time.

1. Drastically overpay for a player we didn't need after allowing a rival to hold us over a barrel on the fee
2. Dude barely plays for half a season
3. Sell him at what would surely wind up being a big loss
Click to expand...

I doubt this is true but I would certainly welcome us recognizing a mistake and shipping the player out quickly rather than wasting our and their time
 
Todd said:
ESPN via The Guardian is claiming that we're looking to move him in January.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...manchester-united-looking-move-mason-mount-on

I think it's a long shot, but if it were to happen it'd surely be the most embarrassing piece of transfer business in quite some time.

1. Drastically overpay for a player we didn't need after allowing a rival to hold us over a barrel on the fee
2. Dude barely plays for half a season
3. Sell him at what would surely wind up being a big loss
Click to expand...

So many of United's big money moves have been embarrassing over the last decade.
One of them is starting on the wing tonight
 
Cloud7 said:
I doubt this is true but I would certainly welcome us recognizing a mistake and shipping the player out quickly rather than wasting our and their time
Click to expand...
I don't think we can write Mount off yet, he's got enough about him as a player to succeed here. Just need to stop this awful 'hot take' culture in the caf of calling people shit when the whole team is dysfunctional. There are good players in the team and there are some less good players, Mount we don't really know how he'll turn out but he can still come good and be a starter at 8 in my opinion.
 
11101 said:
I refuse to believe Mount was 'who he wants' after his time in Ajax and chasing Frenkie De Jong all last summer. More likely the board said sorry mate you can't have that fancy French or Italian wine you asked for but here's some English champagne. It's won awards you know.
Click to expand...
EtH waxed lyrical about the guy & multiple actual midfielders moved for less money in the Summer.

The whole finances around Mount (fee + wage) could, sorry would, have seen us buy a better midfielder for less all-in last Summer.

Mount epitomises EtH signings.
 
tomaldinho1 said:
I don't think we can write Mount off yet, he's got enough about him as a player to succeed here. Just need to stop this awful 'hot take' culture in the caf of calling people shit when the whole team is dysfunctional. There are good players in the team and there are some less good players, Mount we don't really know how he'll turn out but he can still come good and be a starter at 8 in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I saw nothing of Mount in his time at Chelsea and England to make me think there’s enough about him to succeed so I’m not as optimistic as you are in that regard and I’m happy to write him off and move him on
 
AFC NimbleThumb said:
EtH waxed lyrical about the guy & multiple actual midfielders moved for less money in the Summer.

The whole finances around Mount (fee + wage) could, sorry would, have seen us buy a better midfielder for less all-in last Summer.

Mount epitomises EtH signings.
Click to expand...
Mount was on loan to Vitesse at one point and apparently was MoTM against ETH's Ajax. Fits ETH obsession with signing players from Dutch league. Cannot see how our scouts went for Mount out of the global talent pool.
 
Cloud7 said:
I saw nothing of Mount in his time at Chelsea and England to make me think there’s enough about him to succeed so I’m not as optimistic as you are in that regard and I’m happy to write him off and move him on
Click to expand...
No one has ever seen anything of Mason Mount as a Number 8 to make them think there’s enough for him to succeed at United.

Sorry there is one person, Ten Hag.
 
Yeah, no way we sell up in January.

We never sell players early. We'll really struggle to find someone to pay a fee we'd consider appropriate and match his salary, anyway.
 
Cloud7 said:
I saw nothing of Mount in his time at Chelsea and England to make me think there’s enough about him to succeed so I’m not as optimistic as you are in that regard and I’m happy to write him off and move him on
Click to expand...
That's fair enough, I will point out though that he's only started a handful of games and so would think for any player, even if you're not sold on them, being trained into a new role you at least wait until they've had a decent run in a non injury battered team. There's no prizes for being 'right' on the caf despite how many posters behave.
 
Gordon Godot said:
Mount was on loan to Vitesse at one point and apparently was MoTM against ETH's Ajax. Fits ETH obsession with signing players from Dutch league. Cannot see how our scouts went for Mount out of the global talent pool.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I like EtH but there’s a weird cult beginning to surround him that is starting to move blame elsewhere for any failings.

You can say many things have been against him but signing Mason fecking Mount as a the big midfield signing after spending a year in the country is some of the most questionable business you will find.
 
Gordon Godot said:
Mount was on loan to Vitesse at one point and apparently was MoTM against ETH's Ajax. Fits ETH obsession with signing players from Dutch league. Cannot see how our scouts went for Mount out of the global talent pool.
Click to expand...
Same way Liverpool and Arsenal were both in for him. Oddly we did Liverpool a favour as they went for Szoboszlai instead.
 
11101 said:
I refuse to believe Mount was 'who he wants' after his time in Ajax and chasing Frenkie De Jong all last summer. More likely the board said sorry mate you can't have that fancy French or Italian wine you asked for but here's some English champagne. It's won awards you know.
Click to expand...

He'll be costing a fortune. Significant transfer fee for a player with a year left and he'll be earning £200k, easy. The Italian would have been cheaper.
 
Cloud7 said:
I saw nothing of Mount in his time at Chelsea and England to make me think there’s enough about him to succeed so I’m not as optimistic as you are in that regard and I’m happy to write him off and move him on
Click to expand...

I have never been able to work out what he is or what he's good at. I assumed it was because I', not bright enough to see what he actually does, given all the hype around him and the top clubs linked to him, as well as being a regular for England.

I am still none the wiser.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.