How did anybody ever think this would work? It's not as if Mount is some unknown quantity whose strengths, weaknesses, and attributes aren't totally clear. Even with a bare-bones recruitment department, we should've known him inside and out given that he's been a regular player in our league for multiple years!
The Casemiro/Mount/Bruno midfield
- Thread starter Malone_Post
- 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.
How the feck is that going to help?
The problem isn't Bruno, who we'd have literally won 0 league games without this season.
The problem is that Mount has no place in any team's midfield and we keep putting him in ours. It's so obvious how is anyone not seeing this. He contributes absolutely nothing there at all and Casemiro ends up trying to do everything himself to compensate.
Dropping key players during a crisis is a sure fire way to get yourself sacked
Casemiro and amrobat should be good and balanced.
We are a very bad team going forward so we need Bruno for the odd moment of magic if we are to create anything. Be can't be dropped.
We are a very bad team going forward so we need Bruno for the odd moment of magic if we are to create anything. Be can't be dropped.
While Bruno is playing shite week in week out it is a problem. We may have won more games without him.
Who would have won us those games? What game have we lost because of Bruno apparently being so bad?
How do people watch us play atm and come to the conclusion "it's Bruno that's the problem"?
I'm sorry but that's just bonkers.
This is absolutely spot on.
If I'm sat at home seeing the Mount transfer news and saying "where on earth does Mount fit?" when I, in general, don't really know anything, then how is nobody at the club flagging this?
Even if you somehow had no idea what sort of player Mount was, 10 minutes on google would sort you out. It makes me think that the research doesn't actually extend beyond "someone who plays broadly in the middle and is proven at this level" along with a quick nod of the head from ETH that he has heard of him from the Dutch league and was decent. It seems like how clubs like Spurs and Liverpool used to operate about 20 years ago.
Problem with our team is that if Bruno has an off day, our creativity goes with him.
I have no idea what Mount excels at and what we wanted from him that we spent 60m on him when we should have bought someone who can replace Eriksen. Mount doesn’t seem he has the creativity to be that player
I have no idea what Mount excels at and what we wanted from him that we spent 60m on him when we should have bought someone who can replace Eriksen. Mount doesn’t seem he has the creativity to be that player
I thought mount played alright. Casemiro was wank, missed few headers, on good day those could've been goals. Bruno, what is he good for?
Maddison was available cheap and he didn't get him because ETH watch young Mount played and really likes him. If we compare both Maddison is definitely playing better and at a higher level.
One of the most annoying things on the caf is when something that obviously won’t work gets pointed out but you get called negative or have sarcastic posts directed at you.
During preseason there were quite a few of us that said it would be a bad idea to adopt this midfield trio both on and off the ball. We were told we didn’t understand 3-2-5 formations and that EtH would have us playing like City and Arsenal with Mount and Bruno in MF.
Anyone with a hint of objectivity can see that this was a bad idea. Bruno and Casemiro together is already a horribly flawed pairing then you add a player that wants the ball even less than they do and prefers playing higher up. It was a recipe for disaster.
I continuously said in the preseason thread that Mount needed to be Bruno and Antony’s competition. Sure Mount had the legs that Eriksen doesn’t but doesn’t posses the on ball quality and is even less of a CM than Eriksen.
During preseason there were quite a few of us that said it would be a bad idea to adopt this midfield trio both on and off the ball. We were told we didn’t understand 3-2-5 formations and that EtH would have us playing like City and Arsenal with Mount and Bruno in MF.
Anyone with a hint of objectivity can see that this was a bad idea. Bruno and Casemiro together is already a horribly flawed pairing then you add a player that wants the ball even less than they do and prefers playing higher up. It was a recipe for disaster.
I continuously said in the preseason thread that Mount needed to be Bruno and Antony’s competition. Sure Mount had the legs that Eriksen doesn’t but doesn’t posses the on ball quality and is even less of a CM than Eriksen.
Will only work with Amrabat at the base.
Yep. I don't think people understand that running round a bit doesn't constitute a good midfielder.
I thought it was obviously a terrible idea from the off,but having seen it in action a few times I also actually find Mount quite infuriating to watch. His positioning is completely fecking dumb and when he gets the ball his instinct is turn or go backwards or to just run into nowhere with it. Casemiro is negatively impacted as he starts trying to compensate and gets caught higher up.
I think there's two problems with this system. one is that it fundamentally can't and won't work, the second is that I've not seen anything from Mount in years to suggest he should be playing for us anyway, regardless of what position.
It's very rare when a manager has what seems like a completely crazy idea that it doesn't turn out to be completely crazy. Even the best managers can do it, but they don't usually spend £50m to implement it and then carry on persisting with it through multiple disasters
And then down the line, when it becomes undeniably obvious to everyone that it doesn't work, the retort becomes "well everyone always knew it wasn't going to work!"
Or if Hannibal partners Casemiro in midfield. Mount should either play on the right wing or sit on the bench.
It won't work in a hundred years, something has to give and we either have to bin Bruno for mount's sake or relegate the latter to a bench option for Bruno.
As it stands there are probably more balanced options available from the current roster, some involving our academy players.
As it stands there are probably more balanced options available from the current roster, some involving our academy players.
How do people watch us and come to the conclusion that Bruno isn’t a problem.Who would have won us those games? What game have we lost because of Bruno apparently being so bad?
How do people watch us play atm and come to the conclusion "it's Bruno that's the problem"?
I'm sorry but that's just bonkers.
Yup I would prefer this as well. Case’s progressive passing is very underrated and I think we will be more attacking with this midfield than with Case/Mount/Bruno midfield.
Our three fullbacks all acted quite differently last season. Dalot is the one who will do what you are talking about, coming more into a central midfield area quite often (although still nowhere near as often as Amrabat has been doing so far or that Stones does for City). AWB tends to stay wide when in deeper areas but will move central in more attacking positions to attack the box. And Shaw tends to stay quite wide the majority of times (which is strange when you would think he's the one most suited to coming into midfield).Ok it's Dalot in an example I could quickly find, but this isn't similar? I never said we did it the same way, just that we already (ok not all the time) were brining a full back inside when were attacking.
Prefer Casemiro, Mainoo and Meijbri.
Amrabat on the left back to help out DM if needed.
Bruno and Mount can play on the right wing if needed.
Amrabat on the left back to help out DM if needed.
Bruno and Mount can play on the right wing if needed.
Persisting with this shambles of a midfield after it performed so well at the start of the season? Brilliant idea! Wondering how many losses is it going to take for him to realize this isn't it and it's never going to work? None of these players can exert control over the field, even less so when played together. Why Mount was brought in, as a priority target even (!), shall remain a mystery of the ages.
Amrabat needs to be moved into the CM role as soon as Reguilon is back. I'd try Mount, Hannibal, or maybe even Van de Beek as the forward midfielder and drop Bruno, just for the sake of at least trying something different to what we have been doing for so long. Also drop Rashford alongside him. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but it sure as hell beats trying the same thing over and over and getting the same result.
Amrabat needs to be moved into the CM role as soon as Reguilon is back. I'd try Mount, Hannibal, or maybe even Van de Beek as the forward midfielder and drop Bruno, just for the sake of at least trying something different to what we have been doing for so long. Also drop Rashford alongside him. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, but it sure as hell beats trying the same thing over and over and getting the same result.
Funny thing is mount played well. I too dont rate mount but he played really well yesterday and midweek.
It is bruno who looked out of place and we should have done everything to keep Hannibal in that line up.
Hannibal and martial should have been kept in the lineup based purely on their performances midweek. Rashford, bruno and pellistri offered nothing.
All that aside, I still cant believe we wasted 55m on mount....rather have spent that money on madison or a RW like olise or even kudus. Hell even going out and buying someone like todibo would have been money better spent.
It is bruno who looked out of place and we should have done everything to keep Hannibal in that line up.
Hannibal and martial should have been kept in the lineup based purely on their performances midweek. Rashford, bruno and pellistri offered nothing.
All that aside, I still cant believe we wasted 55m on mount....rather have spent that money on madison or a RW like olise or even kudus. Hell even going out and buying someone like todibo would have been money better spent.
We didn’t need either. Maddison is an AM. The biggest issue is Ten Hag didn’t sign what we needed in the summer.
I thought it worked well yesterday. Maybe with the exceptions of a few individual mistakes from Casemiro. Mount had a very good match.
I still missed Hannibal. Not sure if it was more of a bias thing, as he has not exactly been a creative force for us so far. But considering how poor Rashford have been these days, we could have put him on for Rashford and put Bruno out left.
I still missed Hannibal. Not sure if it was more of a bias thing, as he has not exactly been a creative force for us so far. But considering how poor Rashford have been these days, we could have put him on for Rashford and put Bruno out left.
The weird thing is that there was an easy solution yesterday. Just play one of Bruno or Mount on the right and get another proper CM(Hannibal) in there.
Why we sacrificed that to play Pellistri I don't know.
Why we sacrificed that to play Pellistri I don't know.
I'm just totally unconvinced. Nothing we've seen so far makes me think it'll suddenly or eventually click, football isn't rocket science, sometimes its not that complicated. If Ten Hag isn't careful this midfield three will be the death of him.
I think it's because a lot of people are convinced eth is working towards some sort of complex tactical masterplan the lay person can't quite see. Gues this is based on the tactical flexibility his ajax team displayed but we don't have some of the critical players that made that system work e..g.de jong and it's a lot easier to get away with that sort experimentation in the Dutch league. It all points to ethnot understanding the demands of the league or simply having poor judgement
WRONG. We didn't buy Maddison because we have Bruno and Eriksen and hadn't sold McT or DVB in time.
Would not compare to Mount at all
Ten Hag has to decide whether he trusts Bruno or not. There is no space for Bruno and mount on the same starting eleven. We are just back to needing two defensive midfielders in the middle of the park because the back needs protecting and the front doesn’t even try to win it back, maybe apart from hojlund. I was surprised that amrabat didn’t start in the middle beside casemiro yesterday tbh
When in reality, it’s more just massively not understanding the player profiles he has.
Like @El Jefe says, it’s true that people were banging on about how Man City play with 2 attacking midfielders, completely ignoring the fact that every single one of their midfielders passes and retains the ball with an accuracy that not a single one of ours can. Then there’s the (inability) of our midfield to retain the ball in tight spaces or dribble out of trouble. It was never comparable.
Hag, with a straight face, decided to add an attacking midfielder who excels at very little other than final third counter attacking to a midfield pairing that has the most volatile passers already in there. I still genuinely can’t work out if that was ignorance or arrogance.
The most obvious thing for me at the moment is putting Bruno or Mount on the right. Overload the midfield with Amrabat and Casemiro sitting deeper, Mount as a 10 and Bruno on the right with a free role. The issue is our defence is that all over the place with injuries we’ve had to play our new midfielder at left back.
Add Antony back into the mix and EtH has a lot of hard choices to make. Without him available you could get both Mount and Bruno on the pitch by playing one of them on the right.
With so much drama already surrounding the club, do you want to add more by dropping the captain or the new no.7
With so much drama already surrounding the club, do you want to add more by dropping the captain or the new no.7
The last game against CP, it's clear from the mod week game how much better we are without him and Rashford.Who would have won us those games? What game have we lost because of Bruno apparently being so bad?
How do people watch us play atm and come to the conclusion "it's Bruno that's the problem"?
I'm sorry but that's just bonkers.
It's a mess but Ten Hag is stubborn in trying to force it to work as he clearly planned this whole season around it.
Yesterday Bruno should have played on the right and a more balanced option should have played alongside Casemiro. Pellistri should be nowhere near starting for us.
Hannibal deserved another chance after his performance on Tuesday although it was clear that Palace didn't even try in that game, too many got carried away by it.
Mount and Bruno isn't going to work, one should play as 10 and the other has to play on the right or left.
Two should play behind, Casemiro's place should be at risk with the dross he is producing. Amrabat, Mainoo, Eriksen and Hannibal should be competing for the two slots. Not a great set of options but it's all we've got.
It's not that complicated but Ten Hag is making it so.
Yesterday Bruno should have played on the right and a more balanced option should have played alongside Casemiro. Pellistri should be nowhere near starting for us.
Hannibal deserved another chance after his performance on Tuesday although it was clear that Palace didn't even try in that game, too many got carried away by it.
Mount and Bruno isn't going to work, one should play as 10 and the other has to play on the right or left.
Two should play behind, Casemiro's place should be at risk with the dross he is producing. Amrabat, Mainoo, Eriksen and Hannibal should be competing for the two slots. Not a great set of options but it's all we've got.
It's not that complicated but Ten Hag is making it so.
Bruno, Casemiro and Amrabat lost the ball 60 times yesterday. It's 80 if you add Rashford, you could make excuses for Amrabat playing in an unfamiliar position. The other three are who they are, and they will never change.
Amrabat had 88% passing and was basically playing two positions at the same time. He did his job. Maintain possession and give it to the attackers to do something with it. The main problems on the ball yesterday were the attacking players and Casemiro who lost the ball so much it almost gave me an anuerysm watching.
Ten Hag needs to play football manager before buying any more players, he should be banned from the transfer market. He is now trying to fit an oval shaped peg into a weird shaped hole and it isn't working properly. Our coach needs to be taught how to play football manager and use the bloody thing to give him a chance of getting a successful transfer.
Play bruno on the right and mount on the left with either rash or hojlund up to and play actual midfielders in midfield instead of attacking midfielders
Can't even understand what you are saying, Mount is like Bruno, why do we want to 2xBruno in midfield? Maddison will easily replace Erikson. Maddison is a real playmaker unlike Bruno.
Im all for players criticism but lets put this into a wider context. Our most creative and influential player between 2020 and 2021, a valuable Chelsea player bought as a reinforcment this season and a former CL winning DM are all rubbish (and can not play togheter) and our poor old manager isnt being understood? Sure you can nitpick me on every single of these players but when its all three of them its hard not to put this down to very poor management.