Mason Mount

[ROTG]

5 minutes ago, FrankLampard8 said:

I completely agree. He's probably my favourite player and i'd be gutted to see him go. However, that doesn't actually answer the question I posed. 

I thought MM playing under Lampard and TT answers your question. 
 

[thevelourfog]

4 hours ago, xceleryx said:

RJ and Chilwell end up as fullbacks rather than wingbacks where both have looked less convincing.

I'd strongly challenge this. Both have consistently looked brilliant at full back, and there often isn't any real difference in their positioning or roles in a back 4 or back 3. The number of players attacking or defending is generally the same with either full or wing backs imo, and how you choose which formation to go with is generally more about your CBs than anything else. I'd even put who you've got playing notionally wide in the front 3 and how well they cover as a bigger consideration than midfield options.

I don't think we're building a squad that has wing backs as a default option, the January signings were very much about speed and mobility higher up the pitch. With Fofana fit and Silva (and even Koulibaly) probably playing lesser roles next season, I think 4 at the back is where we're heading irrespective of Mount. For what it's worth, though, I think Mount would be excellent on the left or right in a midfield 3. The issue is we have plenty of options in that position and none for the central midfield one. 

[FrankLampard8]

Just now, ROTG said:

I thought MM playing under Lampard and TT answers your question. 
 

How exactly does that answer the question? Lampard and Tuchel largely played completely different systems with Mount playing different roles. We also have an almost entirely new squad now with different players to take in to account. 

Again, Mount is probably my favourite player. I'm not asking whether he's good or could be used. I am asking for specifically, what formation would we play and what role would Mount take right now? What players would you play with him?

[FrankLampard8]

1 minute ago, thevelourfog said:

For what it's worth, though, I think Mount would be excellent on the left or right in a midfield 3. The issue is we have plenty of options in that position and none for the central midfield one. 

This is 100% correct in my opinion. Where we lack more than anything is 1 or 2 genuine holding options in the middle of the park which would complement what we already have. A sitter could comfortably play in a 3 with Enzo and Mount and get the best out of all 3. it also makes for interesting combinations with Kova, Kante and Gallagher rotating in too. Unfortunately we don't have that player in the squad at present. 

[ROTG]

46 minutes ago, FrankLampard8 said:

. We also have an almost entirely new squad now with different players to take in to account. 

The only way your question can be answered is when the club the club are challenging for the top spot. If the club is challenging for the top spot without MM then you could say he is surplus to requirements.
However that is not the case the entire squad has gone into recess since Team GP came to town.
 

the majority of the over priced purchases in January will not be starters next season, if the club bring in a WC coaching team.  However should Team GP remain IMO it’s another season of mediocrity and MM will walk in the summer. 

[FrankLampard8]

8 minutes ago, ROTG said:

The only way your question can be answered is when the club the club are challenging for the top spot. If the club is challenging for the top spot without MM then you could say he is surplus to requirements.
However that is not the case the entire squad has gone into recess since Team GP came to town.

the majority of the over priced purchases in January will not be starters next season, if the club bring in a WC coaching team.  However should Team GP remain IMO it’s another season of mediocrity and MM will walk in the summer. 

If you can't answer my question i'm not really sure why you felt the need to respond to it. 

The question is, how do you fit Mount in the team and give him more more minutes right now. You clearly don't know and that's ok because I don't think there's really answer that keeps the balance of the team with our current personnel - Potter clearly agrees.

[RDCW]

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

I'd strongly challenge this. Both have consistently looked brilliant at full back, and there often isn't any real difference in their positioning or roles in a back 4 or back 3. The number of players attacking or defending is generally the same with either full or wing backs imo, and how you choose which formation to go with is generally more about your CBs than anything else. I'd even put who you've got playing notionally wide in the front 3 and how well they cover as a bigger consideration than midfield options.

I don't think we're building a squad that has wing backs as a default option, the January signings were very much about speed and mobility higher up the pitch. With Fofana fit and Silva (and even Koulibaly) probably playing lesser roles next season, I think 4 at the back is where we're heading irrespective of Mount. For what it's worth, though, I think Mount would be excellent on the left or right in a midfield 3. The issue is we have plenty of options in that position and none for the central midfield one. 

I find myself agreeing with you twice in one month. Stop it.

Edited March 10, 2023 by RDCW

[paulw66]

On 09/02/2023 at 05:43, Michael Tucker said:

 

Despite what some here seem to  think, he's no Frank Lampard. Not even close.

If you look at the two career paths, Mount is currently way ahead of Lampard.

Mount turned 24 in January, and in the previous 3 seasons played a key part in a team that has finished 4th, 4th and 3rd, whilst winning the CL (plus super cup and cwc), and getting to 3 FA Cup finals, and a LC final. He has played 36 games for England (5 goals), playing a key role in the team that made it to the final of the Euros.

At aged 24 (June 2002) Lampard, had played 50 fewer career games.  He had just completed his first season at Chelsea, finishing 6th, and getting to the FA cup final. His PL finishes in reverse chronological order were 15th, 9th, 5th and 8th. He had 7 England caps (0 goals), and his only career honour was the 1999 Intertoto Cup

 It is not even close. 

What Lampard did from 24-34 was go off the scale with his improvements. It will take one hell of an effort for Mount to get anywhere near what Lampard did , but it would be utter, utter FOLLY, to allow him to try and achieve this elsewhere. 

[RDCW]

54 minutes ago, FrankLampard8 said:

If you can't answer my question i'm not really sure why you felt the need to respond to it. 

The question is, how do you fit Mount in the team and give him more more minutes right now. You clearly don't know and that's ok because I don't think there's really answer that keeps the balance of the team with our current personnel - Potter clearly agrees.

My view is that you guys are too hung up on "Football Manager" detail. The real world is complex and nuanced, but also simpler and more fluid than can be shoehorned into a textbook, coaching manual, or statistical analysis. I dont think Mount's form (shooting aside) has been as bad as some people have been saying. He has been asked to play a utility midfield role, that is to say a multitude of different roles, but clearly wants to play in the centre of midfield.

I think he is good enough and culturally important enough to affect the philosophy of how we move forward. The truth is we will need to be adaptable to more than one system and Mount can have a role in any of them. I see him as a better mentally adjusted Roy Keane style midfielder, rather than Lampardesque, but he does need to work hard on his shooting.

[paulw66]

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

I'd strongly challenge this. Both have consistently looked brilliant at full back, and there often isn't any real difference in their positioning or roles in a back 4 or back 3. The number of players attacking or defending is generally the same with either full or wing backs imo, and how you choose which formation to go with is generally more about your CBs than anything else. I'd even put who you've got playing notionally wide in the front 3 and how well they cover as a bigger consideration than midfield options.

I don't think we're building a squad that has wing backs as a default option, the January signings were very much about speed and mobility higher up the pitch. With Fofana fit and Silva (and even Koulibaly) probably playing lesser roles next season, I think 4 at the back is where we're heading irrespective of Mount. For what it's worth, though, I think Mount would be excellent on the left or right in a midfield 3. The issue is we have plenty of options in that position and none for the central midfield one. 

 

2 hours ago, FrankLampard8 said:

This is 100% correct in my opinion. Where we lack more than anything is 1 or 2 genuine holding options in the middle of the park which would complement what we already have. A sitter could comfortably play in a 3 with Enzo and Mount and get the best out of all 3. it also makes for interesting combinations with Kova, Kante and Gallagher rotating in too. Unfortunately we don't have that player in the squad at present. 

Spot on.

It's funny how the people have been crying out for us to go to 3 at the back, were demanding TT was more attacking and go to a flat 4. 

If you have a proper DM (a sitter) and pace at CB (Fofana) then your full backs in a 4 will get as high as they do as Wing Backs....... 

[Mark Kelly]

I'm sure that the debate around GP's strengths and weaknesses featured the fact that GP likes to pick and choose what formation he uses for which particular opposition we face , surely one of these formations would suit Mount ? 

Maybe , if GP stays and starts getting results we will see appearances shared out between players so we don't flog the same ones into the ground all the time.

[McCreadie]

3 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

If you have a proper DM (a sitter) and pace at CB (Fofana) then your full backs in a 4 will get as high as they do as Wing Backs....... 

This.

                         Kepa

James Fofana Badiashile Chilwell

                     Enzo Rice

      Nkunku Felix Mudryk

                      Havertz

 

If we dont end up buying Felix, Havertz goes to 10, Mount can rotate into that 3 and we buy a proper ST. No idea who that would be though. Prime Drogba would look good there!

 

                 

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, FrankLampard8 said:

If you can't answer my question i'm not really sure why you felt the need to respond to it. 

 

I have answered many times, he was a nailed on starter under SFL & TT, Team GB rocks up and the entire squad goes into recession. 

MM being one of the senior players, i am sure he will get a serious amount of minutes, due to the team  going back to TT's formation. 

Answer this, If the result goes south tomorrow and MM is not a starter, could that be one of the reasons, alternately if the team wins id that the argument that MM is surplus. I guess if it a draw all comparison are null and void :0)

[paulw66]

8 minutes ago, McCreadie said:

This.

                         Kepa

James Fofana Badiashile Chilwell

                     Enzo Rice

      Nkunku Felix Mudryk

                      Havertz

 

If we dont end up buying Felix, Havertz goes to 10, Mount can rotate into that 3 and we buy a proper ST. No idea who that would be though. Prime Drogba would look good there!

 

                 

Quite

That's the other thing......Imagine how many more goals and assists would have had by now, playing off a prime Drogba or Costa.

[FrankLampard8]

23 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Answer this, If the result goes south tomorrow and MM is not a starter, could that be one of the reasons, alternately if the team wins id that the argument that MM is surplus. I guess if it a draw all comparison are null and void :0)

I literally have no idea what you are getting at here. You still haven't actually answered my question really so I think i'm going to end this conversation now for my own sanity. 

[Ham]

Not available for tomorrow apparently 😔

[xceleryx]

2 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

I'd strongly challenge this. Both have consistently looked brilliant at full back, and there often isn't any real difference in their positioning or roles in a back 4 or back 3. The number of players attacking or defending is generally the same with either full or wing backs imo, and how you choose which formation to go with is generally more about your CBs than anything else. I'd even put who you've got playing notionally wide in the front 3 and how well they cover as a bigger consideration than midfield options.

I don't think we're building a squad that has wing backs as a default option, the January signings were very much about speed and mobility higher up the pitch. With Fofana fit and Silva (and even Koulibaly) probably playing lesser roles next season, I think 4 at the back is where we're heading irrespective of Mount. For what it's worth, though, I think Mount would be excellent on the left or right in a midfield 3. The issue is we have plenty of options in that position and none for the central midfield one. 

You're within your rights to challenge it. I mean, I don't necessarily agree with the notion that both have consistently looked brilliant at full back. I think both have had some good games there by all means, but in terms of pure consistency, production and impact I think they've done far better in those wingback positions - especially this season where the difference has been night and day. 

I agree that there's desire to move away from the wingback system and return to a more conventional back four, and it's shown in those we've signed. It's going to take a holding midfielder to come in first before its truly viable however.

My argument was never about if Mount could or couldn't play in midfield, it's more that if playing as an #8 is deemed his best position we're limited to virtually a 433 to fit him in. Now, that's not a bad thing in itself,  problems do arise however because by having Mount as a CM in a midfield three (Enzo + holding player), it would mean Nkunku (and maybe Joao Felix should he remain) are faced with no place in the side (or Kante for that matter). To include either they'd either need to be shuttled out to the wing, or thrown upfront as strikers - neither being their best position. So it ends up a matter of whether trying to fit Mount into a CM role provides more for the team overall than say utilising a system that would allow a Joao Felix or Nkunku to play attacking midfield behind a CF.

Everyone is going to have their opinions on that, and there's naturally no real right or wrong answer, but it is a genuine issue that will be required solving. I think if Mount had better general production numbers and produced more against the big teams, it would be a much easier decision to make. But because his overall numbers have been rather inflated thanks to set pieces and scoring bulk goals against some of the worst sides in the comp in recent years, it's not quite as straight forward. 

[chiswickblue]

No need to worry about him leaving, someone is doing the ABC of being a football agent. My client is negotiating for a better contract, so I'll invent some links to other clubs.

It's Marco Delvecchio all over again.

[hallgalley]

Maybe it’s like when JT was going to Man City hope he stays but if he goes are we looking at Gallagher/chukwumeka in that position( rice wouldn’t come if mount leaves) maybe ampadu can play that Dm role

[Mark Kelly]

Daily Mail saying Mount already turned down £100k per week rise under Abramovich almost two years ago which has cost him £4m in lost wages already. I don't think the money is the issue in that case.

[Flinkers]

I have a theory - Mount is looking to see where his best friend ends up next year and will look to go there. If Rice signs for us, I think it’s pretty certain Mount will too. If Rice goes North, those Liverpool rumours will get louder.

[Michael Tucker]

On 11/03/2023 at 20:57, Mark Kelly said:

Daily Mail saying Mount already turned down £100k per week rise under Abramovich almost two years ago which has cost him £4m in lost wages already. I don't think the money is the issue in that case.

Sorry Mark, but I can't see the point in referencing the Daily Mail, when we all know the it's full of bollocks and inventions. What the F would the Mail Know? 

[Sciatika]

1 hour ago, Michael Tucker said:

Sorry Mark, but I can't see the point in referencing the Daily Mail, when we all know the it's full of bollocks and inventions. What the F would the Mail Know? 

How to monetise journalism in an internet age. They are just about the only UK newspaper who have made significant inroads into the US market. It's a worry. I am, of course, using the term "newspaper" loosely, but maybe what people want to read is "bollocks and invention". For all the talk about fake news, the accusation is only made when the reader (or a competitor) sees something they don't agree with. Maybe making it all up means that no one has to care what they say.  

[martin1905]

On 10/03/2023 at 10:30, thevelourfog said:

I'd strongly challenge this. Both have consistently looked brilliant at full back, and there often isn't any real difference in their positioning or roles in a back 4 or back 3. The number of players attacking or defending is generally the same with either full or wing backs imo, and how you choose which formation to go with is generally more about your CBs than anything else. I'd even put who you've got playing notionally wide in the front 3 and how well they cover as a bigger consideration than midfield options.

You are if course right, a back 4 or a back 5 makes almost no difference to how the full backs play. It's a weird argument that goes on here and dates back to Conte when some would argue black is white to back him and his tactics. 

I've been fortunate enough to watch literally hundreds of games since Conte, through to now where we played both systems and can categorically say there is no difference to how the full backs play in either system. 

It's such a weird stance to take.

On 10/03/2023 at 10:30, thevelourfog said:

I don't think we're building a squad that has wing backs as a default option, the January signings were very much about speed and mobility higher up the pitch. With Fofana fit and Silva (and even Koulibaly) probably playing lesser roles next season, I think 4 at the back is where we're heading irrespective of Mount. For what it's worth, though, I think Mount would be excellent on the left or right in a midfield 3. The issue is we have plenty of options in that position and none for the central midfield one. 

Yes, this is again spot on. We won't be playing a back 5 next season, especially as Potter wont be here.

We probably won't play 4231, again as Potter wont be here, and most top managers play 433, funny that, and whatever people want to claim there is no doubt our current squad, minus the loan player and the player we haven't signed yet suit 433 much better than any of system. Literally our entire midfield. Kante, Gallagher, Enzo, Mount, Kovacic, RLC all suit a three man midfield better than a pivot. All of them.

We've also spent a fortune on wide players, proper wide players that we are now trying to shoe horn into a system that doesn't get the best out of them. We saw only one play against Leicester and he was played out of position. 

We will play a back 4 next season regardless of whether we play a pivot or a three man midfield, or whatever else. The notion that we should be worrying about the loan player or one we haven't signed is just ridiculous, especially at the detriment to our current players. 

Now, none of us know why Mount hasn't signed but I get the impression if he was playing regularly, in his preferred position, under a proper manager we wouldn't be having this discussion, he'd have signed up already.

[McCreadie]

56 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

You are if course right, a back 4 or a back 5 makes almost no difference to how the full backs play. It's a weird argument that goes on here and dates back to Conte when some would argue black is white to back him and his tactics. 

I've been fortunate enough to watch literally hundreds of games since Conte, through to now where we played both systems and can categorically say there is no difference to how the full backs play in either system. 

It's such a weird stance to take.

Yes, this is again spot on. We won't be playing a back 5 next season, especially as Potter wont be here.

We probably won't play 4231, again as Potter wont be here, and most top managers play 433, funny that, and whatever people want to claim there is no doubt our current squad, minus the loan player and the player we haven't signed yet suit 433 much better than any of system. Literally our entire midfield. Kante, Gallagher, Enzo, Mount, Kovacic, RLC all suit a three man midfield better than a pivot. All of them.

We've also spent a fortune on wide players, proper wide players that we are now trying to shoe horn into a system that doesn't get the best out of them. We saw only one play against Leicester and he was played out of position. 

We will play a back 4 next season regardless of whether we play a pivot or a three man midfield, or whatever else. The notion that we should be worrying about the loan player or one we haven't signed is just ridiculous, especially at the detriment to our current players. 

Now, none of us know why Mount hasn't signed but I get the impression if he was playing regularly, in his preferred position, under a proper manager we wouldn't be having this discussion, he'd have signed up already.

Alternatively, Potter changes system in the summer once the squad is complete.

*gets coat, runs away*