Gak-yes

I didn't mean to imply that we're directly moved on from e.g. Arnautovic to Gakpo, but there are only so many transfers we can execute / afford in one summer and there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in the profiles of the players we have targeted. Some of that might be to do with a more nuanced and opportunistic view of squad building and not necessarily buying e.g. Rabiot as a lynchpin of the first team. However (with the caveat that we don't know how strong these links were) we do seem to have shifted away from a period of time when we were being consistently linked with target man centre forwards (Sesko, Kalazdjic as well as the big racist), and at the moment that seems off the agenda.

I agree it doesn't mean there has been no thought behind our activities, but it would represent a shift, and I guess what drove my previous comment was a curiosity about what has propelled that change. Is it about supply or demand, or a bit of both?

By the way, the latest comments I can see attributed to Ornstein are that we've cooled our interest in Gakpo.

The issue here is that being linked with players doesn’t really tell us too much.

I get that our strategy in the transfer market is often one that leaves people scratching their head, but the sheer amount of people we are linked with leads to that as well.

As incompetent as United are, one thing I’ve always tried to defend the club on is that there isn’t any strategy or consideration for the transfers we make. I think it’s arrogant and stupid of football fans to make such a claim.

Whether that strategy and consideration is effective and detailed is a different debate, but there’s always been plenty of good reasons (from the club’s perspective anyway) as to why we’ve signed, or targeted, the players we have over the years.

Agreed Dazza. Plenty of thought will always have gone into all of our recruitment. The instances of bad decision making will have a rational thought process behind them, and I guess are also contextualised by the fact that we're recurrently entering the market in a position of weakness, and therefore inevitably more at the mercy of who becomes available than a club in the ascendancy.

Yeah definitely. And with that it becomes a case of us having to put out too many fires to make up for previous mistakes.

Part of me thinks that given how often we leave ourselves short in certain positions, and the regularity with which our signings struggle as a result, we’d be better of taking an approach that tends to look at quantity over quality.

I think many would regard the transfer policies of Serie A clubs to be a bit of a shiiiitshow, however, if you throw enough shiiiiiit, as they say. And many of these clubs have ended up with far more successful signings as a result.

It would probably allow us to be more ruthless with regard to moving players on as well. Because we wouldn’t have heavily invested huge transfer fees and wages in so many players that we then feel obligated to stick with.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 55 minutes ago
I didn't mean to imply that we're directly moved on from e.g. Arnautovic to Gakpo, but there are only so many transfers we can execute / afford in one summer and there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency in the profiles of the players we have targeted. Some of that might be to do with a more nuanced and opportunistic view of squad building and not necessarily buying e.g. Rabiot as a lynchpin of the first team. However (with the caveat that we don't know how strong these links were) we do seem to have shifted away from a period of time when we were being consistently linked with target man centre forwards (Sesko, Kalazdjic as well as the big racist), and at the moment that seems off the agenda.

I agree it doesn't mean there has been no thought behind our activities, but it would represent a shift, and I guess what drove my previous comment was a curiosity about what has propelled that change. Is it about supply or demand, or a bit of both?

By the way, the latest comments I can see attributed to Ornstein are that we've cooled our interest in Gakpo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


(In strategy terms) a shift tactically, but not necessarily strategically.

It may be the case that ETH sees two gaps up top, for example; in simple terms, for ease of illustration only, a Plan B-type target man, and a more versatile second striker type. And he wants both gaps filling, if you will,
as his squad is assembled over the next few windows.

So they’re looking at two separate lists of players and thinking about who might be available, what kind of solution they might offer (a more permanent solution or a stop-gap?) and what funds there are to spend. I’m sure there’s a lot of juggling of potential combinations going on, but it’ll be at a squad level, rather than a first XI level.

So the shift wouldn’t necessarily be a strategic shift, in terms of what ETH wants his squad to look like or how he plans on setting up; it’d be a tactical one in terms of how the squad reshaping develops over time (get the ‘more versatile second striker’ now, and the ‘target man’ later, or vice versa, with the ultimate result being the same). Does that make any sense?

It does, Rosso. I guess it's possible that, within your explanation (where it's accepted that we have an incomplete squad after this first window), the profiles of the deals we close earlier in the window (and potentially Ten Hag's continued learning about his squad) influence which profiles within that wider list of targets we prioritise. I.e. it seems to me conceivable that there's no inherent contradiction between what you've said and the notion that landing a more destructive DM rather than a ball progressing player could result in prioritising mobility in attack, without dropping the longer-term goal of adding a target man to the squad.

I'll bow to your superior tactical mind if you're sceptical about that on a footballing basis.

Outgoings will have an impact as well.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 6 minutes ago
It does, Rosso. I guess it's possible that, within your explanation (where it's accepted that we have an incomplete squad after this first window), the profiles of the deals we close earlier in the window (and potentially Ten Hag's continued learning about his squad) influence which profiles within that wider list of targets we prioritise. I.e. it seems to me conceivable that there's no inherent contradiction between what you've said and the notion that landing a more destructive DM rather than a ball progressing player could result in prioritising mobility in attack, without dropping the longer-term goal of adding a target man to the squad.

I'll bow to your superior tactical mind if you're sceptical about that on a footballing basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no, no, I agree with that completely.

(By which, I guess, I actually mean yes, and not no. So yes.)

By the way, if it came down to Gakpo primarily as a CF or Depay for a bargain fee, which would you choose?

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 12 minutes ago
By the way, if it came down to Gakpo primarily as a CF or Depay for a bargain fee, which would you choose?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I honestly don’t know. I guess my (cop-out) answer would be whichever one ETH wanted more.