Save £15M on Baines and spend that and another 15 on Modric makes a lot more sense.
Luka Modric / Signs for Real Madrid
- Thread starter Sassy Colin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It was generally agreed that Scholes was a deep-lying playmaker in 06/07 despite getting forward plenty, was it not? It's not uncommon for people to simply call a playmaking centre mid (rather than a #10) a deep-lying playmaker. Modric first and foremost looks to orchestrate things while playing in front of the opposition midfield rather than in behind it, i.e. deeper than the traditional #10 playmaker. He's the one who initiates the attacks, the one who the defence look to first and the one who's always an option at the infancy of a move.
Agreed. It would make far more sense to strengthen midfield before we strengthen other positions. But imo, we're more likely to end up with Baines and no CM.
I'd have concerns playing Modric with anyone else but Carrick and Fletcher. He just doesn't put a defensive shift in, and I can envisage defensive disasters. Presuming we're sticking with 4-4-2 of course.
You can apply those same concerns to pretty much all our midfielders, they all need Carrick or someone like him. That's why as much as I'd love Modric he's not my first priority. If we were to sign two midfielders then great bring him in, but if as I suspect we'll at max bring in one, then it really needs someone capable of doing Carricks role then it needs to be extra competition for clev, ando, scholes and giggs.
"... Spurs remain braced for offers for midfielder Luka Modric, who is set to hand in a transfer request, but Real Madrid have cooled their interest.
Spurs chairman Daniel Levy has also made it clear to Chelsea, who have made a fresh inquiry, that he will not sell to another English club, raising the prospect that the Croatia international could still stay ..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Villas-Boas-to-join-Tottenham-this-week.html
Spurs chairman Daniel Levy has also made it clear to Chelsea, who have made a fresh inquiry, that he will not sell to another English club, raising the prospect that the Croatia international could still stay ..."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-Villas-Boas-to-join-Tottenham-this-week.html
Aye, but those kind of players are in ridiculously short demand ... which puts into context why Ferguson hasn't so much as dipped his toes in the CM market for a few years. Still, if Newcastle can find Cabaye there must be a player out there for us.
Who cares what he's considered, factually he's nothing like what a deep lying playmaker was considered when it was coined. You're just tagging him with it because it sounds cool, he plays lots of passes and it takes the light off his low goalscoring and assist numbers.
A deep lying playmaker sits behind the other midfielders. Modric was the most adventurous of the Spurs CM whether playing in a 2 or 3.
Scholes is not our deep lying playmaker. Thats why he was able to get on the scoresheet a few times last season. Carrick was sitting deeper instead. Scholes averaged 1.2 shots per game last season, the most of our midfield. Scholes was just playing a general CM role, not as offensive as he used to be perhaps but he was the one joining the attack.
And yeah Modric could of course sit there like Scholes was doing before he retired and just play the ball around, but although it was nice to have Scholes passing in there he wasnt worth £30-40 million. We were just using what we already had in the squad. We didnt go and buy him to do that job.
Modric has other skills Scholes did not have and he also lacks some of the things Scholes did and to some extent still does have. He's just not a deep lying playmaker.
I honestly think your definition of a DLP is screwed up. You seem to think that if there's a midfielder deeper than the DLP, then said player cannot be a DLP.
I explained it pretty well before, so I'm not going to do so again because it seems you are well set in your opinion.
But the fact is, Modric does join in attacks yes, buy he first and foremost generally plays as a DLP and would do so for us.
Ekeke's a dickhead best ignored.
I'm sure with united's scouting resources that there'll be players out there. Even in the league someone like Fellani, would be a good shout. But I've got a feeling that if he can't get Modric he won't add anyone. I hope not, but I can see him leaving it.
When someone says Deep lying playmaker I straight away think of Pirlo sitting as deep as he used to for Milan. At least as far as I'm aware, its him and his role that popularised the term whether it was created especially for him or not.
For sure, the closest United have had to that is Michael Carrick at various times (but not every season) sitting and shielding the defence and holding so another player can get forward more than he does.
For me "playmaker" has been more often an attacking/creative midfielder than a number 10. Deco, Valeron, Veron for example.
Number 10 being the more recent "Advanced playmaker" (for some a second striker) rather than every creative central midfielder being called a "Deep lying playmaker"
If that becomes the new definition of a deep lying playmaker, then whats the point in the term? Creative midfielder, as always, still covers it
Aye. I think he's actually referring to a defensive midfielder. They are whom sit deep for the majority of a game. I had a discussion about this earlier in the thread.
To be fair I think Modric can play different roles in midfield. I think Jol started playing him as a deep playmaker, similar to his role with Croatia and he is very effective there, as an orchestrator for the team. He's started to revert more to this role in the last couple of seasons and has also developed the defensive side of his game to good effect. At Dinamo he usually operated as an attacking midfielder either centrally or wide left, and Redknapp deployed him there to good effect for the majority in 2009-2010.
He's just an extremely versatile player and that is a massive plus for any attack minded team. If Chelsea secure him it will be a coup, especially with the attacking players they have already acquired. Expect them to be a real force next season.
In Modric's case he has at least 1 midfielder behind him. If Spurs play with 3 he plays in front of 2 midfielders. So how can you call him a deep lying midfielder? When he's more advanced than all of our midfielders bar Anderson?
Brwned - Does that make Carrick, Scholes and Cleverley all deep lying playmakers because they all look to get the ball off the defence and spread the play from its early phase? We see the likes of Iniesta do it too.
Comparing him to Alonso is very misleading.
Perhaps Cleverley is. I don't think Carrick or Alonso are playmakers, they distribute the ball but don't dictate the play.
At the end of the day it's irrelevant. We all agree he's a centre mid and he's a playmaker, what you choose to call that is up to you. Pirlo certainly wasn't the one who popularised the term though. Somehow stumbled across a Milan forum talking about Albertini as a 'deep-seated playmaker' with posts from 1999 a while back and it seemed like they saw it as a common term.
At the end of the day it's irrelevant. We all agree he's a centre mid and he's a playmaker, what you choose to call that is up to you. Pirlo certainly wasn't the one who popularised the term though. Somehow stumbled across a Milan forum talking about Albertini as a 'deep-seated playmaker' with posts from 1999 a while back and it seemed like they saw it as a common term.
I agree a very few times but I certainly agree with Pete here.
You dont think Alonso dictates the play? He did at Liverpool. He feeds it into Ozil in good positions for Madrid and for Spain he took over Xavi's old role freeing him to play further forward
Cleverley surely cant be because he doesnt have a high output of passes. But he does take the ball from the defence and started the moves last season. I think there are plenty of players who do that but I wouldnt call them playmakers.
For those of you continuing to wonder if Modric is on the menu for Man. Utd this summer ....
I can only quote the immortal words of Basil Fawlty: "Sorry, duck's off!"
I can only quote the immortal words of Basil Fawlty: "Sorry, duck's off!"
That seem to make you happy? Is it ABU issues you have, or the general Spurs inferiority complex? He's going to leave Spurs anyway, or if he's forced to stay because of a £40M fee he's going to play average again like last season.
This smugness is so misplaced is laughable. If I was you I'd be sickened, becasue the replacement Moutinho is quoted at £30M and is half the player. The moment any player makes a name for themselves at Spurs they want out to a bigger or better club, always have. Bale is no exception either, despite his new contract. He'll be gone within 24 months IF he keeps up last years performance.
Basil Fawlty will be managing Spurs shortly.
In general, your post reeks of misplaced bitterness: I'm just relaying the news that Modric won't be playing for Man. Utd.
And yes, of course I'm pleased he isn't going to be sold to Man. Utd - why would I want to see Spurs strengthen a rival for a top 4 place?
As for Moutinho, Spurs wouldn't offer that much (30m) for him, even though your "half the player" description is clearly an exaggeration.
Man utd are not rivals of Spurs for a top 4 place. Your rivals are Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle. We are a level above you, so strengthening us wouldn't make a difference to your chances of top 4.
Agreed Theon. Chelsea may still be their rivals too, and that looks like the most likely destination for him to be honest. GS would be stupid if he wanted Modric to go to Chelsea over us.
What have you heard then? Is he off to Real? Chelsea? Staying at Spurs?
Each season is a new, blank slate. It's not written in stone that Man. Utd. will be finishing in the top 2.
Both Liverpool and Chelski fans have previously thought that they were each a nailed-on top 4 club ... and then suddenly they weren't.
Spurs have been generally improving for several seasons now, whilst last season I saw a somewhat declining Man. Utd.
There are some very big changes afoot at Spurs this summer - some negative, some positive and some of an as-yet-unknown calibre. But overall I reckon the positive will outweigh the negative, probably by some margin.
At the same time I don't personally think that your recent transfer dealings (the last couple of years) have been especially clever. You might improve on that this summer ... or you might not.
The danger for Man. Utd, as it was for Liverpool, is complacency.
He's not going to Chelski (Levy would never sell to them, as he showed last summer).
Hehe. You've said this before and yet every season since you've been on here we've finished in the top two.
Lol Spurs rivals to Man United haha
We can only go off of history and in the Premier League's entire existence you have never been a rival of Man United.
Even though, Liverpool slipped away the season after coming 2nd, they lost Xabi Alonso, who was probably their most important player. Most were too busy paying attention to the Torres-Gerrard partnership to notice how good he was and just how key he was. They didn't realise how detrimental his departure was. On the other hand, we were missing our most influential player for most of the season and have him back now. We will not be losing any of our other main players, and will only get stronger. That year, Liverpool arguably did overachieve a lot as well. Whether they were really the 2nd best team in the league is heavily debatable. We didn't overachieve last season. We came 2nd by a considerable distance, and we are the 2nd best team in the league without any question.
Sure, we could become complacent. We could be battling for the top 4. You could finish inside the top 4. You could be battling in there for a place with us. Notice a trend in my sentences though? The chances of that happening are very slim, and you generally are not our rivals. You would be more advised to sell him to us than Chelsea if both offered similar prices.
Sure, we could become complacent. We could be battling for the top 4. You could finish inside the top 4. You could be battling in there for a place with us. Notice a trend in my sentences though? The chances of that happening are very slim, and you generally are not our rivals. You would be more advised to sell him to us than Chelsea if both offered similar prices.
How fickle. Of course he would sell to them if he got a brilliant offer from them. Chelsea have an incredible amount of money. They were not willing to break the bank and overpay for him last summer, but they know they have the added lure of being European Champions now, and they desperately need a new creative mid as well. Modric would go their in a heartbeat too. It really would not surprise me if Chelsea signed him.
He will be leaving Spurs almost certainly and I think United, Chelski or Madrid are all possible destinations. Glaston's smug assertions are ridiculous.
We are always there or there abouts and have been for the last 20 years, it is difficult to conceive that we won't be near the top next season. Likewise you wouldnt expect Madrid or Barca to finish outside the top 2 next year.
As for our signings, they have been fine.
De Gea - great potential and can be our keeper for years
Jones - preciously talented
Young - bought to add depth
Hernandez - very shrewd signing
Powell - a young talented player
Kagawa - fantastic signing
I have no qualms over our transfer policy, we don't have the money to splash around like City do so we have a much more frugal approach to the transfer market. We have made a lot of good sensible signings
Is he signing yet?
I'd agree with your advice if those were the only choices, but we're not selling to either club so the question is academic.
You say that you "will only get stronger", but right now I'm not so sure that'll be true (even whilst acknowledging that you are more likely to finish above Spurs than not). I could explain why, but perhaps that's for another thread ... and besides the Spain - Italy match is about to start.
Glaston has now said the same thing about us every season. I also don't think we're in any danger of complacency till Fergie's incharge of us.
You could argue we haven't been particularly ambitious in the transfer market in the last few seasons thought it's been more that we have missed out on our targets. However, our transfer buys in the last few years have been overwhelmingly successful, with Bebe and Berbatov the only exceptions.
There is 0 chance of Spurs finishing above United with SAF in charge. I can't believe we are even talking about Spurs as a rival. They are not. Right now I see only City as being capable of finishing above us.
The season 2010/11, we finished with 80 points and won the league. The season 2011/12, we finished the season with 89 points, so we were 9 points better off.
If it wasn't for a last minute Aguero goal, we'd be sitting as champions right now - that's how close we were to the title.
For a team to get 89 points and not win the league is just insane.
I like Spurs, I do agree you've made good strides but make no mistake here, they aren't rivals to us.
You won't finish above United before Modric finishes his career and probably for a long time after.