I thought he looked very clumsy and missed a number of simple chances but he certainly is a nuisance that naturally attracts the ball in the box.

The fact that these stats can differ noticeably dependant on the source shows how subjective they ultimately are, and of limited use.

No Markanday tomorrow, hes with the kids tonight.

I don't mean that as an insult to him or a criticism regarding his general ability/performances, I just mean that he hasn't played in a midfield 2 deeper so until he does, I am wary of making statements about him doing x y and z without seeing him play and hopefully thrive for a bit in central midfield first, rather than further forward. I would also agree that many aspects of his game do suit a potential change, he can pass a ball (the switch mentioned above to Brittain was excellent) and take it on the half turn so in theory giving him more of the ball is of benefit. But he is good at being in the opposition half and slipping people in so I do wonder if playing deeper will limit that ability. I also wonder if he is able to adapt in terms of reigning in his petulance and needless fouls which should really have seen him off half an hour into his first game there.

He was never expected or asked to be our main goal threat.

Not sure being a wing back suits him at all. Steady left back more than a flying wing back.

I thought Pickering was comparable to Brittain last week, I was surprised to see that the former was seen as one of our poorer performers.

I think people are getting carried away calling him the "special one" or suggesting Premier League football within a year. The first thing he needs to do is prove that he is a capable central midfielder at senior level, in theory I can see that happening as he has skills but there is a bit of give and take considering his strengths and weaknesses. He clearly technically is gifted and he can pick out passes but I have found that he is a very penetrative passer who likes and successfully plays passes in the final third to create key chances, even off the top of my head, I can think of a great one to Gallagher I think v Cardiff who scored, one on the opening day which Brereton should have scored but missed and Gallagher scored the rebound, and one for Khadra (maybe v Huddersfield?) in which he should have scored but hit the bar. Moving him further back will make that more difficult and less likely with more onus on using his passing ability to control games which is quite a bit different and I don't think we controlled the game v QPR for example. He can play on the half turn so hopefully one thing he would be able to do is not give it away very often in dangerous areas. He can also press really well so pushing him back puts less onus on him to do that. One thing he is really poor at is his shooting (bar that one at Birmingham) so moving him back puts less onus on that which is good. He is also a petulant player who gives away silly yellows and doesn't adapt well afterwards, Saturday wasn't the first time when he perhaps ought to have been sent off. He needs to mature and become cleverer in avoiding cards especially when on a yellow.

His best ever run of form came in that position initially. I hope not simply because that would mean that Dack clearly hasnt returned to his old self. By being played in holding midfield?

I havent said that they all need to be experienced. For example, Morton on loan and one other would be reasonable in midfield, just Morton not so much. We have been very reliant on the academy for years so its not something that required crying out for. I dont think that specific quote is unambitious at all, I would agree. I think though that the youngsters should be individually brought in as and when they seem to be ready, not on mass to pad out the squad for budgetary reasons. We will see if Buckley joins a Premier League side at the end of the season.

Ive never been convinced by Rashford, can be very lazy and has never kicked on. The type of player who the media portray as not playing well because of any reason but his own application and ability.

I dont agree with the idea of targets that graduates should play x minutes in general. Nothing like that shouls be a target as it causes conflict in the sole purpose of picking a team every week that is best suited to winning that game. Of course but as evident in the season prior, we cant guarantee the fitness of any player so you need 2 players for every position. Travis got a bad injury and it left a huge hole. 4 players supplemented by youngsters who may be ready now, may be ready at a later date and may never be ready seems reasonable to me. As it stands we look light.

Why is that the alternative?! There is never any middle ground.

It isn't, especially at Championship level. Take last season, we finished 8th but far closer than in recent years to the play offs and we were right in with a shout and it took a collapse to miss out. Did that come as the culmination of a slow build? Not really, we sold our best player, lost a number of other important ones and had no reinvestment but in a poor league, sometimes things click into place, a couple of really good loans, a quality freebie, a new formation, a new manager, a sudden breakthough star, it can be one or a number of these factors. I can't abide by writing seasons off. And if that is what we are supposedly doing, surely you would be against ANY loans this season if it is purely a development one? Not withstanding that Morton is presumably seen as better than the kids we have which is logic that I can understand. Thankfully all of the rhetoric coming from the manager and players seems to continue with the goal of aiming for the top 6. We are spending more money than last summer so why this would be the point of a written off development season makes no sense anyway. Look at Luton, Barnsley and Huddersfield, none of their success seasons necessarily followed a slow build. It shouldn't be about building towards the end of a cycle. It should be underpinning that we have the academy running with individual players (not batches out of necessity) pushing into the first team as and when they are good enough, of constantly looking to develop and to potentially profit on assets, all continuous but with the constant seasonal aim of the top 6. We will always be somewhat reliant on the loan market unfortunately, it wasn't something he chose to do because he preferred it. He hasn't, my post was in response to the poster who had mentioned slow builds, not the manager.

If you think that the problems started a year ago at United then you must have been living in a cave prior.

It's the centre of midfield that we look really light in, not the more attacking roles. If Travis ever doesn't play, who is putting a tackle in?

Slow builds again, the same things Mowbray used to say and get lambasted for! This league as much as any doesn't allow for slow builds. Most teams have a high playing staff turnover each season and we as much as anyone are reliant on the loan market and also find that our better players quickly become impossible to renew the contracts of financially. We cannot just write off this season, the aim should again be the top 6, which as much as it would be exceeding general expectations based on resources etc is definitely not impossible, as Luton, Huddersfield and Barnsley have proved in recent years. The stuff about a Man City like war chest and using the word "expecting" promotion is taking the argument to extremes that nobody has demanded, a straw man argument. I don't get this desire to promote numerous academy graduates for immediate involvement all at once to plug gaps, its unrealistic and its not going to lead to winning matches because some won't make it. For example in midfield, I felt that we lacked quality last season beyond the main 2 but even then, Johnson v Boro and QPR and Davenport v Sheff United were called upon against decent opposition and stepped up.

Considering how poor their other attacking options are, they would be crazy to pay Ronaldo off.

A lot of business talk but 5th considering how much they spent last season was poor and I would suggest that a similar failing to get the top 4 after another summer of huge spending would leave him at the job centre.

I don't feel like kids football is strong enough a barometer to judge the potential success of a young player at senior level, especially with immediate effect. But my point has never been about the individuals, it is about the expectation that a number come through at once, usually out of necessity. I have never doubted the quality of the individuals, but as with basically every youth team, some may well come through, some will tumble into obscurity, and even of those that will come through, they won't all be ready NOW, purely forced out of necessity. Say if Wharton and Phillips are the two that eventually come through, they might need a bit more development to do so. No need to rush it. If I had said x y and z youngsters aren't good enough, you would have a point but I never have. The focus seems to be simply to equal the quality of squad last season but surely the onus is to better it. I would try and get what I consider to be enough first teamers without considering the young lads, so we are covered prudently regardless of if and when they breakthrough, and allow any that are good enough to supplement it. It's a long old slog of a season and especially with 5 subs available, we can't afford to take risks not signing players. Just to clarify, just because the manager does something does not mean that it is automatically right or that our opinions have to align with it. We have both said that we should sign another midfielder, I don't think we will and to me, we would look very threadbare, with no improvement on an area to which we was already light of quality last year. Take Hull away, one absentee in Travis and we looked all over the place, I think if and when he misses any games this year, it could happen again.

The thing is, the benchmark is always to revert to being "as good" as last season. I personally don't think that we were strong enough in central midfield last season, and got lucky with injuries/suspensions. Surely the aim is to be better than last season?

You'd drop Dack from the squad entirely?!

Great post. If a young player as an individual is deemed to be good enough then he will break through either way, every summer with this one particularly bad, we have this thing where people say we don't need to replace x number of senior departees because our young players will all simultaneously step up. That R number is a load of nonsense. If you start measuring targets like that, there becomes a very real chance of that objective conflicting with that of winning football matches.

Arsenal also have spent crazy money in recent years so Arteta is lucky to seemingly have total security in his job.

One drawback could be that there may be a 19th man who usually is on the fringes of the first team but equally becomes rusty as he is around the first team squad on matchdays and not topping up with the reserves.