Is Fred our most under rated player?

Originally Posted by jem

no. not like the euros, obvs. like the world cup. then he was injured and didn't play much or well for us. not really fit for the euros either.

if the new england set-up has sterling over rashford, the new england set-up can f*** off.

rashford will never be picked to lead the line over Kane, Abraham, Calvert Lewin or Ings.
in the attacking positions he is behind sterling, grealish, folden, mount and Sancho.

then you've got smith rowe, saka and Greenwood on the periphery .

who would you put him ahead of?

Think Rashford should improve now he's playing at the top end of the pitch in a two. Playing up wife left for Ole has set him back loads. If he gets some continuity, form and goals then he's a good bet to go to the WC IMHOES.

Originally Posted by no fun

Ah yes, mason greenwood, from that well known manchester suburb of Bradford

All up north though tbf to Marlo

Rashford and The Scottish Player have been infinitely better for United than Pogba and Fred over the time period given though, and Rashford was playing on one leg with one arm for most of it.

Originally Posted by marlo

rashford will never be picked to lead the line over Kane, Abraham, Calvert Lewin or Ings.
in the attacking positions he is behind sterling, grealish, folden, mount and Sancho.

then you've got smith rowe, saka and Greenwood on the periphery .

who would you put him ahead of?

all of the wide players. foden is good, but as attacking midfield. front three of rashford - greenwood - sancho for club and country. would go with kane if he were on form. he never is.

Originally Posted by dunk

Rashford and The Scottish Player have been infinitely better for United than Pogba and Fred over the time period given though, and Rashford was playing on one leg with one arm for most of it.

Why are we putting players who play different positions agaisnt each other ??

compare Fred to The Scottish Player. I disagree.

The Scottish Player is really really bad.
He looks “ok” because he hides. I almost refuse to discuss anything with anyone who even gives him a modicum of praise.

a early 00s sky player cam on him and he would never play for us again.

Marlo, why do you insist on using international appearances and performances as yardstick, when the discussion is about what they do for US - and we have plenty of evidence of them playing for us to make a judgment.

Andy Cole was never really first choice for England. Scholes got shunted out left for Gerrard and Lampard. Works the other way too: Lindelof is Sweden’s captain, but isn’t first choice for us.

So what?

It wasn’t a gauge of quality and had no bearing at all on what they did for the club.

Originally Posted by marlo

rashford will never be picked to lead the line over Kane, Abraham, Calvert Lewin or Ings.
in the attacking positions he is behind sterling, grealish, folden, mount and Sancho.

then you've got smith rowe, saka and Greenwood on the periphery .

who would you put him ahead of?

Originally Posted by marlo

Why are we putting players who play different positions agaisnt each other ??

Originally Posted by Dr Stranger

Marlo, why do you insist on using international appearances and performances as yardstick, when the discussion is about what they do for US - and we have plenty of evidence of them playing for us to make a judgment.

Andy Cole was never really first choice for England. Scholes got shunted out left for Gerrard and Lampard. Works the other way too: Lindelof is Sweden’s captain, but isn’t first choice for us.

So what?

It wasn’t a gauge of quality and had no bearing at all on what they did for the club.

No I’m using to defend a certain player or two.

If someone called awb shit, I’d have no leg to stand on.
But calling full internationals who start for their countries shit is a stretch.
Just like Roy Keane says “these are full internationals” it’s a good yard stick because it means they are best in their position for their country and these counties happen to be Brazil and France

Imagine comparing a starting Brazilian midfielder to a player who can’t get into the Scottish midfield.
Do you think The Scottish Player would start for Brazil? How is anyone not laughing right now

Originally Posted by jem

I was just breaking down how rashford would compare in the 3 positions we all shoe horn him into.

Originally Posted by marlo

I was just breaking down how rashford would compare in the 3 positions we all shoe horn him into.

he's a left-sided forward - either wide left or as left one of split strikers. there's no shoehorn. he's not a centre-forward, nor a midfielder.

But would Fred get in Scotland’s midfield ahead of McGinn and the other lad..? No, probably not

Originally Posted by marlo

they are only shit @#%&!s in the eyes of certain fans who have other reasons to hate them which are private to them.

they both start in midfield for Brazil and France.
On the world rankings those teams are 2nd and 3rd.
you can’t call starting midfielders for two of the top three teams in the world shit. It’s crazy.



I have no anti manchester agenda.

I think Greenwood is abit of a shoot on sight merchant but he is young and developing.

why not unpack the two home grown players in question.
The Scottish Player the midfielder and rashford the striker.
neither are good enough to hold down a spot in their respective positions internationally and both performances over the last two seasons have at best been average.
An i wrong to just not rate either of them.

Why has the goalpost moved from “he only likes black players” to now “oh ok well it’s only homegrown players he doesn’t like”

come on guys. Are you not tired of making me joker in your Gotham city.
I don’t just want to see the world burn.

it can also be a terrible argument which in this case it is. History is littered with bang average players getting starts for top footballing nations, international football isnt always the best representation - Kleberson won a world cup with Brazil and look at his career post United.

Who is Fred keeping out of the Brazil side?

re Keane - he dismissed using players being full internationals as any sort of metric in terms of it meaning they were good in a pretty heated exchange with Jamie Redknapp....

In terms of the Scotland centre back point, this also doesn't really help your argument as he slots in there due to the fact the other Central Midfielders can not. If McGinn or Gilmour were more natural CB's then they'd play there and The Scottish Player would play midfield, shit footballing nation in 'making it work' shocker. Tierney and Robertson both start but invariably one of them has to be left mid to ensure the awful back up options don't need to be called upon.

When Keane played Centre back for us at Stamford Bridge with Djemba-Djemba in midfield was it because Eric Double D was the better centre mid?

Disclaimer before you start - I think The Scottish Player is well below United standard, that just doesn't happen to elevate Fred

Originally Posted by marlo

No I’m using to defend a certain player or two.

If someone called awb shit, I’d have no leg to stand on.
But calling full internationals who start for their countries shit is a stretch.
Just like Roy Keane says “these are full internationals” it’s a good yard stick because it means they are best in their position for their country and these counties happen to be Brazil and France

Imagine comparing a starting Brazilian midfielder to a player who can’t get into the Scottish midfield.
Do you think The Scottish Player would start for Brazil? How is anyone not laughing right now


I was just breaking down how rashford would compare in the 3 positions we all shoe horn him into.

I’m not saying Pogba is shit. In fact, I’m not sure anyone is…. You’re creating strawman arguments again.

What I’m doing is assessing his time at United, as a United player. And it isn’t good enough. And it certainly isn’t as good as Bruno’s time here, which was the whole basis of this discussion.

Pogba starting for France, Fred starting for Brazil and the like reflects their value to their country, but doesn’t affect how we assess their games for us.

Reverse it: if Pogba was playing every week for us, banging in goals and looking like the best player in the league, would we care if he wasn’t getting picked for France? Of course not. Gareth Southgate not picking Mason Greenwood has no affect on how I feel about him or any of the strikers he picks ahead of him.

Don’t want to pick on the lad but how many years could he realistically survive in a concentration camp? 10? 20? Would be at least five before he stopped grinning.

Had a terrible game and as much as it’s his fault he should be the player having to play the defence splitting passes.
both him abs The Scottish Player are being forced to because we don’t have W competent attacking midfielder to come deep and get things going.

we do have one but you guys don’t like him so instead we have Bruno there who will get the ball and just lump it to the player furthest forward first time. Does it about 10 times a game.

Originally Posted by marlo

Had a terrible game and as much as it’s his fault he should be the player having to play the defence splitting passes.
both him abs The Scottish Player are being forced to because we don’t have W competent attacking midfielder to come deep and get things going.

we do have one but you guys don’t like him so instead we have Bruno there who will get the ball and just lump it to the player furthest forward first time. Does it about 10 times a game.

Marlo would get far more agreement on here if his solution to every problem we have wasn’t Paul Pogba.

He’s been here for five years. We know what he’s capable of. It’s not very much.

Originally Posted by dunk

But would Fred get in Scotland’s midfield ahead of McGinn and the other lad..? No, probably not

He gets in Brazil’s midfield, mate.

Originally Posted by ryanMUFC

He gets in Brazil’s midfield, mate.

So McGinn would get in Brazil’s midfield. Good to know.

Originally Posted by dunk

So McGinn would get in Brazil’s midfield. Good to know.

He probably wouldn’t..