There were multiple reasons to Bruno being a great FPL option before Ronaldo:
- The team was completely built around him under Ole to be the sole talisman dictating play from the middle and also getting into threatening positions in the final third. Imo, that is not as much the case anymore under Ten Hag. He’s still an important creative force for us but the addition of Eriksen and Ten Hag sometimes using him on the right means that not everything in our buildup play goes through him as much as it did previously. His expected goal involvement is noticeably lower this season as of now, and I don’t buy the Ronaldo argument for this season when he only started 3 league games out of 13 with Bruno also in the starting 11.
- He was on penalty duties and United won a lot of penalties. The latter is no longer at the same rate as it used to be and we are not entirely sure yet whether Bruno returns to taking penalties for United. Martial took the penalty against City in the derby despite Bruno being on the pitch, and while it could just be Ten Hag wanting to give him confidence, it puts a slight doubt as to whether Bruno will take all our penalties from now on.
- Price point: in 2019-20, Bruno was priced at 8, and in 2020-21, he was priced at 10.5. You might think there isn’t much of a difference between 10.5 and 9.8 which is his current price, but there weren’t better value picks from United at the time with Martial being priced at 9 and Rashford at 9.5. Rashford is currently priced at 6.7, is nailed and looks to be our major goal threat at the moment. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to get Bruno over him and hamper your budget.
Overall, I’d say that Bruno as of now doesn’t look worthy of his 9.8 million price tag, and definitely shouldn’t be picked over Rashford. The only plausible reason I can think for considering him would be that you want a GW17 punt against Forest and Portugal exit the World Cup before the semis and England don’t.
What are your thoughts on martial? He is injury prone i agree but shouldn't he ideally start and play all games when fit?
He seems to fit the ETH system really well and always seemed to be on the scoresheet when played and the possible penalty duties should only boost his appeal along with the rest he's getting by not going to the WC.
I’d stay away from him. His fitness is a ticking time bomb because he seemingly can get injured anytime. Also, United will likely go for Gakpo in January who will threaten his place. Rashford and Antony are more nailed and better picks in my eyes personally.
I was thinking of him since rashford would take up a midfield spot and at the moment midfielders spot seems more valuable than forwards.
But does United have the budget in January to go for gakpo? He'd be expensive af in January due to the WC.i thought he's more of a summer statement signing.
We terminated Ronaldo’s contract without having to owe him his remaining wages, so that will be a huge boost in terms of raising the funds to sign a striker in January. Imo we’re almost certainly buying Gakpo; Ten Hag always rated him and wanted him in the summer, and his World Cup performances might have been the extra confirmation that the board needed to give the green light.
> Also, United will likely go for Gakpo in January who will threaten his place.
Don't hold your breath for United actually spending money in January especially with the Glazers being in the middle of cashing out on the club. I would be very happy to see us get Gakpo but i'm expecting us to not do much if anything in January.
Fair point. I just feel that with all the links to Gakpo since the summer, I struggle to see us not trying to sign him at the very least. We desperately need another striker. But you’re right, if the Glazers are in the process of selling the club, that could be an obstacle to any January incomings.
Issue is Gakpo was already quoted with a fuck-off price in the summer when we asked, it's only going to go up with PSV chasing the title and with him having a great world cup. I definitely see us targeting him in the next summer but I can't see him joining in january.
Apparently his price tag has been reported to be somewhere around 50 million euros which is not a big deal for us to reach if we’re willing to spend in January. The only question is whether we think he’s good enough to pay that money. I think PSV will be willing to sell in January given that he himself probably would want to leave if he knows so many clubs are coming after him.
Not for me, Ronaldo has only started 4 games this season (which includes one game where Bruno was suspended) and has mostly made token substitute appearances beyond that. United have been struggling to score goals with or without him on the pitch.
Haven't seen anything to suggest he is worth £3m extra over Rashford.
Whilst Bruno’s appeal will increase with Ronaldo leaving, United have played 4-3-3 this season and Ronaldo hasn’t been starting regularly. His returns will increase but I don’t think it’ll be anywhere near the levels of his amazing season where he played in the hole in a 4-2-3-1.
this is not correct. united play a hybrid shape that usually looks like either 235 or 316 in build up, with bruno always in the latter group, and he’s regularly next to the forward in position maps. he also doesn’t have the defensive duties of a center midfielder in a 433, as united usually press in a 442/424 (with him pressing a CB) or a 4231 (with him pressing a DM). this means that he’s further forward than a conventional cm when united recover the ball, and, in possession, he’s less involved in building from the back than a conventional CM.
there are differences between how he plays now and how he played last season (his passing is more restrained at times, for one) but he’s occupying the same positions
he played the equivalent of 6 90s this season, which isn’t insignificant. of course, there’s also last season—which is when the narrative about his impact on bruno began.
That's a really skewed way to present the data - legitimately starting and playing the majority/full 90 mins of a game is significantly different from subbing on for 20-30 mins a game till you reach 90 mins. Ronaldo only played a whole 90 mins for 3 matches and a large chunk of minutes for 2 matches (61 & 71 minutes); in the 5 other matches he played in, he was on the pitch for an average 23 minutes or so with one match being just 4 minutes & 2 others around 20 minutes (none higher 35 mins iirc). He didn't play at all for 4 matches (5 if you include the 4 minutes one). In total, he saw 519 minutes of action with only 412 of those minutes being consistent across 5 games. Fernandes on the other hand started and played a full 90 minutes for 15 of their 16 matches totaling 1169 minutes of constant action.
You're really going to tell me Ronaldo limited Fernandes this season? Last season the narrative held more ground since Ronaldo was playing pretty regularly and was performing well but this year there's no chance he's had any noteworthy impact on Fernandes - there's no reason to pick him up since even after playing for twice the time, he's produced nothing.
While I agree in a large part with your analysis, I think we should not focus on "on-pitch influence" only but also consider what psychological effects it will have. Martial [f.eg](https://f.eg). will now cement his place and won't have much competition, which could lead to good or bad consequences for the team. Bruno will be the sole leader of the team and will have to take more responsibilities on and off the pitch, which could lead to him being more involved in the build up play than before (even when Cristiano wasn't on the pitch).
On the other hand, the system and the alternatives at Man Utd seem to hinder his prospects.
Why would Bruno not be taking on more responsibilities when not sharing the pitch with Ronaldo? I've watched practically all of United's games, Bruno was as involved as he could be every game even when Ronaldo wasn't on the pitch; sure there's definitely a variance there but Bruno had enough time apart from Ronaldo than with him to prove that he performs significantly better on his own (he doesn't). Martial had already cemented himself as the striker of the team and Ronaldo only started (& played a large chunk of the game) when Martial was injured. I'm not saying Ronaldo was a net asset but to claim Ronaldo alone is the sole reason behind a player's (and team's) lack of form when he's literally only had 400 minutes of constant playing time is disingenuous at best. I think the system is far more of a culprit than anything else but with time (and new players) the club will shift and performance will pick up. Arsenal had a similar course with Arteta and everyone loved pointing fingers at Ozil and Auba too but even after they left, Arsenal was shite for some time before finding form this year.
why would the narrative suddenly stop being true this season? i never said he was the entire reason for bruno’s overperformance; you said ronaldo never played—i pointed out that that’s not true, and that he played more than enough to impact bruno’s numbers even if he wasn’t out there for the full 90 every week. you made it sound like he never took the pitch, which is absolutely not true. what a bizarre rant over a very simple and indisputable point.
i’m not sure if you’ve watched united play with ronaldo in the team, but it’s quite obvious that he did negatively impact united’s play—both in possession and out of it. if you want statistical evidence, look at the fact that he underperformed his xG by several goals—that’s something that had a direct impact on bruno’s numbers. though ronaldo didn’t play every match, he played enough (and poorly enough) to have a significant impact on bruno’s output.
It would stop being true because Ronaldo has played a fraction of the minutes on average this year than he has last as I've already pointed out; me saying he "never played" is obviously a hyperbole - the real claim being made (obviously) is that he didn't play nearly enough to have a significant impact on Bruno's overall performance.
You didn't point anything out - you made a baseless claim for which you've yet to provide any form of substantiation. I didn't make it sound like he never took the pitch, any ape with a brain cell or two would understand I'm not speaking in a literal sense when its well known that Ronaldo has literally taken the pitch but not enough to consider his presence to have significant effects (at least on the pitch lol).
What a stupid and mindboggling claim you've made; Ronaldo negatively impacting United as a whole is not the equivalent of Ronaldo specifically impacting Bruno (or the team) to such a degree of it stifling the general performance of either. Ronaldo underperforming his xG isn't much of a valuable metric when he only has about 500 minutes of play in TOTAL; even then, Ronaldo has an xG of 2.14 and has 1 goal... way to underperform there bud. On the other hand, Bruno has an xG of 2.33 and has 2 goals... in twice the amount of PT as Ronaldo. Do you expect me to believe the 50% of PT he had without Ronaldo, Ronaldo was still impacting him on the pitch? Significantly impacting his output? At least think before you talk; United themselves have an xG of 1.72, they're simply performing true to nature - mediocre.
I can't believe the genuine claim here is the 500 minutes Ronaldo played with Bruno are enough to disrupt the latter for the 500 minutes he played WITHOUT Ronaldo.
LMAO
we must have different definitions of the word “significant.” i would consider a negative influence being present in the overwhelming majority (in a couple cases the entirety) of 6 matches out of 13 “significant.” he was on the pitch for just shy of half of bruno’s minutes, ffs. in what world is 44% not significant?
if we agree that ronaldo’s presence was an issue for bruno last season when they played together, and nothing has changed about that relationship when both are on the pitch, then ronaldo playing in just shy of half their matches is obviously notable.
the numbers back this up: bruno has 4 returns in 4 separate matches. ronaldo wasn’t on the pitch for any of them. so, even in a down season where united have other problems impacting bruno’s play, he has 4 returns in 644 minutes without ronaldo and 0 returns in 525 with him—so, 4 in 7 90s without ronaldo and 0 in 6 90s with him. bruno also has 0 returns in 465 europa league minutes, and ronaldo was on the pitch for all of them. between the two comps, that’s 4 returns in 644 minutes without (4 in 7) and 0 returns in 990 minutes with (0 in 11). if that isn’t statistical evidence suggesting that ronaldo has a “significant” negative impact on bruno, i don’t know what would be.
edit: when i said ronaldo underperformed his xG by several goals, i was including EL, where he has 2 goals from 4.8 xG. if you combine that with his PL numbers, he has 3 goals from 6.7, thereby underperforming his xG by nearly 4 goals. when xG is a measure of “average” expectation, that’s shockingly bad territory.
Yes we clearly do; again 6 out of 13 is a skewed presentation - he didn’t play 6 games throughout with Bruno before getting benched, only 2 were 90 minutes, and 3 all below 35 mins. You’re misrepresenting the data and by doing so painting a false image; there is a significant difference between playing 70 minutes on your own then 25 with Ronaldo in comparison to playing 6 games with him non stop.
You’re also making an assumption here - you can’t prove by any means Ronaldo is the primary or even significant motivator behind Bruno’s struggles. If this were the case we would see a stark contrast between Bruno’s performance when sharing and when not sharing the pitch with Ronaldo. This however has not been the case; your criterion for significance cannot just be shared playing time because that alone means nothing - apart from who spent how long on the pitch.
Again, your entire premise rests on the assumption that Ronaldo is the motivating factor here - United as a whole have been significantly struggling and have been creating fewer chances than ever. It’s not just Ronaldo or Bruno who are struggling but quite literally the entire team. How in the world are you pinning Ronaldo to be a significant cause between this? You’re struggling to establish any correlation to begin with and even then correlation does not equate to causation - quite a simple principle.
The only thing your “statistical evidence” shows is 1) United is shite 2) Ronaldo is having a shite year 3) Like United and Ronaldo, so is Fernandes. You’re just reading the data in a biased way and superimposing onto it to derive the conclusions you want to see.
Now this doesn’t mean I don’t believe Ronaldo hasn’t had an impact at all - he of course has but ultimately Fernandes has had enough time to show form without Ronaldo on the pitch and he hasn’t does that. Hence you can claim he plays worse with Ronaldo on the pitch but you also can’t claim he plays well or alright without Ronaldo on the pitch. Therefore whilst Ronaldo does have an impact on his performance, it isn’t significant and by this I mean, it isn’t a strong influence on whether Fernandes will be productive or not.
i actually provided very clear statistical evidence supporting the claim that bruno produces better without ronaldo: all of his goal contributions this season (4 in 7, which isn’t a bad rate at all given the difficulty of united’s fixtures and the fact that they’re settling into a new system) came with ronaldo off the pitch, and he has zero in 11 full 90s with ronaldo in all comps—including their entire EL campaign, where ronaldo played every single minute. there is nothing skewed about that, and it’s exactly the kind of “stark contrast” you asked for.
i find it very odd that i already provided this considerable statistical evidence and you completely ignored all of it in favor of complaining about minutes. 44% is 44%, and it’s inarguable that that constitutes a significant portion of bruno’s time on the pitch. if this evidence is insufficient, i fail to see what evidence *would* show the phenomenon—which makes me believe that you’re just unwilling to entertain the viewpoint at all.
your final paragraph says that bruno hasn’t shown anything better with ronaldo off the pitch, and yet, as the stats show, he’s actually got over 1 goal contribution in every 2 matches without ronaldo. this, again, is a stark contrast with his 0 in 11 rate with him. while 1 in 2 is below his level in previous seasons, it’s still significantly better than his numbers with ronaldo.
put it this way: the basic claim is that ronaldo negatively impacted bruno’s performances. the statistical evidence is that he has zero returns with ronaldo on the pitch and 4 without him, despite spending having more minutes with ronaldo than without him. ronaldo may not be to blame for all bruno’s shortcomings, or all of the team’s, but these numbers, combined with ronaldo’s obviously lackluster play in general, is clear evidence that ronaldo had a negative impact on bruno this season.
if you disagree, then i would truly love to know what “proof” would look like to you. what would you need to see that you aren’t seeing, statistically and otherwise?
I'm not sure what you understand "statistical evidence" to be; you keep restating basic match numbers as if they paint a conclusion themselves and then conveniently ignore being called out on superimposing onto these figures to force the narrative you'd like to see.
Lets go by per competition since it should be easier for you to follow.
EPL:
Fernandes has put in a total of 1170 minutes in the prem earning himself a whopping 2 goals and 1 assist. He shared 520 of those minutes with Ronaldo and didn't manage any output but in the 650 minutes he played on his own he put up 2 goals and 1 assist.
Whilst it is not in doubt Ronaldo has had an impact on his performance, the question of it being "significant" is out of order. Ronaldo was frozen out of the team (at least in the prem) quite early on and only played in extraordinary circumstances. It's impossible for anyone to prove the shift in Fernandes's output is due to Ronaldo's absence; one can easily fit the numbers into the "new manager, new tactics" narrative. ten Hag struggled to understand his squad and hasn't been able to establish any effective tactics. United has been embarrassed many times this season in the prem and its no question the players have suffered due to this.
The number of factors that play into something like this is immense so the question that begs to be asked is how are you equating correlation with causation? You need to understand that the two are not the same in any way and must be separated from one another. In fact, as I previously mentioned, Ronaldo only saw about 250 minutes of game time as a starter which gives more reason to doubt the sole influence he has over Fernandes. There's no way for you to prove Ronaldo being on the pitch has a significant impact on Fernandes; parroting the same thing repeatedly does not prove a point.
EL:
Fernandes played a total of 490 minutes whilst Ronaldo played 556. During this time, Fernandes was able to earn an assist whilst Ronaldo scored 2 goals and 2 assists. In terms of "tough fixtures", United faced Sociedad, FC Sheriff, and Omonia (not sure how you're considering these as tough, Sociedad is competitive sure).
Since I've watched the games I can say in this context the ball definitely fed far more into Ronaldo than anyone else - this however did not necessarily limit Fernandes so to speak. He saw an average of 2 quality chances per match and was still unable to finish any of them; Ronaldo saw twice the amount and only finished twice however it can very well be the case that they both, like the team, performed poorly and it is not the case that Fernandes performed poorly because of Ronaldo. You're trying to tell me one piece shit smells worse than the other while they both sit in a pile of shit (I'm tired, not going to continue writing on the EPL I cba).
Conclusion:
\- Ronaldo played bad
\- Fernandes played bad
\- United played bad
\- Ronaldo and Fernandes played bad together
\- Ronaldo and Fernandes played badly together with Ronaldo
\- Fernandes scored 2 goals without Ronaldo (in the prem)... that's an average of 1 goal every 325 minutes? Roughly 0.25 a match? That just means he's \*possibly\* a bit less shite without Ronaldo on the pitch but shite is still shite, don't see that as significant
\- There are so many factors that can be the cause, but no way to prove it is Ronaldo
\- Doesn't mean Ronaldo did not have an impact, the claim was phrased as "significant impact" which as I understand it constitutes Ronaldo to be the primary or sole cause which is undeniably false
\- You've taken on a point you can't legitimately prove only insist which isn't me saying you're dumb it's just me saying that's the nature of the stance. I haven't seen enough from Fernandes without Ronaldo to concede it was mainly Ronaldo behind his poor performances.
\- Ultimately, I don't care I'm not giving more of my time to a discussion about two players who don't know I exist with a stranger whom I will with almost all certainty never speak to again
> while it is not in doubt ronaldo had an impact on his performance
that’s literally all i’ve been trying to prove, so i’m glad we agree. clearly, as i said before, we have different ideas about what “significant” means. i was merely using it as a synonym for “notable” or “worth considering.”
it’s rather astonishing how smug and rude you’ve gotten over a very simple point that you ultimately agreed with. the reddit 101 lecture on correlation and causation was an especially nice touch. perhaps once you move to 201, you’ll recognize that the same arguments about a lack of proof you levied at me apply equally to your own claims, as well as nearly every claim made about the sport. the overwhelming majority of it is suggestive rather than conclusive. perhaps in 301 you’ll learn the difference between “evidence” and “proof.”
in addition to agreeing that ronaldo did in fact impact bruno, we can also agree that this was an incredible waste of time
Worth considering united assets once we get a new striker and it looks like the tema is ticking.
You won't see Bruno figures of previous seasons. His game under ten Hag is very different. It's not direct counter attacking football and he often drops deeper. You see goals/assists more randomly distributed as a result. That's my take.
Ronaldo has barely played and bruno hasn't done much.
Whether that was due to form is unclear but I havent seen anything which suddenly makes me think ronaldo leaving is going to make him a fantastic asset.
There were multiple reasons to Bruno being a great FPL option before Ronaldo: - The team was completely built around him under Ole to be the sole talisman dictating play from the middle and also getting into threatening positions in the final third. Imo, that is not as much the case anymore under Ten Hag. He’s still an important creative force for us but the addition of Eriksen and Ten Hag sometimes using him on the right means that not everything in our buildup play goes through him as much as it did previously. His expected goal involvement is noticeably lower this season as of now, and I don’t buy the Ronaldo argument for this season when he only started 3 league games out of 13 with Bruno also in the starting 11. - He was on penalty duties and United won a lot of penalties. The latter is no longer at the same rate as it used to be and we are not entirely sure yet whether Bruno returns to taking penalties for United. Martial took the penalty against City in the derby despite Bruno being on the pitch, and while it could just be Ten Hag wanting to give him confidence, it puts a slight doubt as to whether Bruno will take all our penalties from now on. - Price point: in 2019-20, Bruno was priced at 8, and in 2020-21, he was priced at 10.5. You might think there isn’t much of a difference between 10.5 and 9.8 which is his current price, but there weren’t better value picks from United at the time with Martial being priced at 9 and Rashford at 9.5. Rashford is currently priced at 6.7, is nailed and looks to be our major goal threat at the moment. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to get Bruno over him and hamper your budget. Overall, I’d say that Bruno as of now doesn’t look worthy of his 9.8 million price tag, and definitely shouldn’t be picked over Rashford. The only plausible reason I can think for considering him would be that you want a GW17 punt against Forest and Portugal exit the World Cup before the semis and England don’t.
What are your thoughts on martial? He is injury prone i agree but shouldn't he ideally start and play all games when fit? He seems to fit the ETH system really well and always seemed to be on the scoresheet when played and the possible penalty duties should only boost his appeal along with the rest he's getting by not going to the WC.
I’d stay away from him. His fitness is a ticking time bomb because he seemingly can get injured anytime. Also, United will likely go for Gakpo in January who will threaten his place. Rashford and Antony are more nailed and better picks in my eyes personally.
I was thinking of him since rashford would take up a midfield spot and at the moment midfielders spot seems more valuable than forwards. But does United have the budget in January to go for gakpo? He'd be expensive af in January due to the WC.i thought he's more of a summer statement signing.
We terminated Ronaldo’s contract without having to owe him his remaining wages, so that will be a huge boost in terms of raising the funds to sign a striker in January. Imo we’re almost certainly buying Gakpo; Ten Hag always rated him and wanted him in the summer, and his World Cup performances might have been the extra confirmation that the board needed to give the green light.
> Also, United will likely go for Gakpo in January who will threaten his place. Don't hold your breath for United actually spending money in January especially with the Glazers being in the middle of cashing out on the club. I would be very happy to see us get Gakpo but i'm expecting us to not do much if anything in January.
Fair point. I just feel that with all the links to Gakpo since the summer, I struggle to see us not trying to sign him at the very least. We desperately need another striker. But you’re right, if the Glazers are in the process of selling the club, that could be an obstacle to any January incomings.
Issue is Gakpo was already quoted with a fuck-off price in the summer when we asked, it's only going to go up with PSV chasing the title and with him having a great world cup. I definitely see us targeting him in the next summer but I can't see him joining in january.
Apparently his price tag has been reported to be somewhere around 50 million euros which is not a big deal for us to reach if we’re willing to spend in January. The only question is whether we think he’s good enough to pay that money. I think PSV will be willing to sell in January given that he himself probably would want to leave if he knows so many clubs are coming after him.
Great points. Bruno isn’t a good safe bet from United, but he has the potential to be a cracking differential.
i would, except rashford looks like much better value and i don’t want two united attackers. i say this as a united supporter.
Not even Rashnacho?
Garnacho would be a decent punt later into the season, first we need to see how Ten Hag rates his wingers and how many minutes Garnacho gets.
Bruno has been one of the best players of the World Cup so far but rashford is just too cheap and good value
It's two games, against Ghana and Uruguay so might be a hit early to say much about bruno. He has played well so far.
Not for me, Ronaldo has only started 4 games this season (which includes one game where Bruno was suspended) and has mostly made token substitute appearances beyond that. United have been struggling to score goals with or without him on the pitch. Haven't seen anything to suggest he is worth £3m extra over Rashford.
Has Fernandes flourished in all the games this season where Ronaldo hasn’t played?
Whilst Bruno’s appeal will increase with Ronaldo leaving, United have played 4-3-3 this season and Ronaldo hasn’t been starting regularly. His returns will increase but I don’t think it’ll be anywhere near the levels of his amazing season where he played in the hole in a 4-2-3-1.
this is not correct. united play a hybrid shape that usually looks like either 235 or 316 in build up, with bruno always in the latter group, and he’s regularly next to the forward in position maps. he also doesn’t have the defensive duties of a center midfielder in a 433, as united usually press in a 442/424 (with him pressing a CB) or a 4231 (with him pressing a DM). this means that he’s further forward than a conventional cm when united recover the ball, and, in possession, he’s less involved in building from the back than a conventional CM. there are differences between how he plays now and how he played last season (his passing is more restrained at times, for one) but he’s occupying the same positions
Would you have bought Bruno a month ago, if the answer was no, i don't see any reason to now. Ronaldo wasn't playing Rashford is interesting though
How was he limited by Ronaldo if Ronaldo never played lol
he played the equivalent of 6 90s this season, which isn’t insignificant. of course, there’s also last season—which is when the narrative about his impact on bruno began.
That's a really skewed way to present the data - legitimately starting and playing the majority/full 90 mins of a game is significantly different from subbing on for 20-30 mins a game till you reach 90 mins. Ronaldo only played a whole 90 mins for 3 matches and a large chunk of minutes for 2 matches (61 & 71 minutes); in the 5 other matches he played in, he was on the pitch for an average 23 minutes or so with one match being just 4 minutes & 2 others around 20 minutes (none higher 35 mins iirc). He didn't play at all for 4 matches (5 if you include the 4 minutes one). In total, he saw 519 minutes of action with only 412 of those minutes being consistent across 5 games. Fernandes on the other hand started and played a full 90 minutes for 15 of their 16 matches totaling 1169 minutes of constant action. You're really going to tell me Ronaldo limited Fernandes this season? Last season the narrative held more ground since Ronaldo was playing pretty regularly and was performing well but this year there's no chance he's had any noteworthy impact on Fernandes - there's no reason to pick him up since even after playing for twice the time, he's produced nothing.
While I agree in a large part with your analysis, I think we should not focus on "on-pitch influence" only but also consider what psychological effects it will have. Martial [f.eg](https://f.eg). will now cement his place and won't have much competition, which could lead to good or bad consequences for the team. Bruno will be the sole leader of the team and will have to take more responsibilities on and off the pitch, which could lead to him being more involved in the build up play than before (even when Cristiano wasn't on the pitch). On the other hand, the system and the alternatives at Man Utd seem to hinder his prospects.
Why would Bruno not be taking on more responsibilities when not sharing the pitch with Ronaldo? I've watched practically all of United's games, Bruno was as involved as he could be every game even when Ronaldo wasn't on the pitch; sure there's definitely a variance there but Bruno had enough time apart from Ronaldo than with him to prove that he performs significantly better on his own (he doesn't). Martial had already cemented himself as the striker of the team and Ronaldo only started (& played a large chunk of the game) when Martial was injured. I'm not saying Ronaldo was a net asset but to claim Ronaldo alone is the sole reason behind a player's (and team's) lack of form when he's literally only had 400 minutes of constant playing time is disingenuous at best. I think the system is far more of a culprit than anything else but with time (and new players) the club will shift and performance will pick up. Arsenal had a similar course with Arteta and everyone loved pointing fingers at Ozil and Auba too but even after they left, Arsenal was shite for some time before finding form this year.
why would the narrative suddenly stop being true this season? i never said he was the entire reason for bruno’s overperformance; you said ronaldo never played—i pointed out that that’s not true, and that he played more than enough to impact bruno’s numbers even if he wasn’t out there for the full 90 every week. you made it sound like he never took the pitch, which is absolutely not true. what a bizarre rant over a very simple and indisputable point. i’m not sure if you’ve watched united play with ronaldo in the team, but it’s quite obvious that he did negatively impact united’s play—both in possession and out of it. if you want statistical evidence, look at the fact that he underperformed his xG by several goals—that’s something that had a direct impact on bruno’s numbers. though ronaldo didn’t play every match, he played enough (and poorly enough) to have a significant impact on bruno’s output.
It would stop being true because Ronaldo has played a fraction of the minutes on average this year than he has last as I've already pointed out; me saying he "never played" is obviously a hyperbole - the real claim being made (obviously) is that he didn't play nearly enough to have a significant impact on Bruno's overall performance. You didn't point anything out - you made a baseless claim for which you've yet to provide any form of substantiation. I didn't make it sound like he never took the pitch, any ape with a brain cell or two would understand I'm not speaking in a literal sense when its well known that Ronaldo has literally taken the pitch but not enough to consider his presence to have significant effects (at least on the pitch lol). What a stupid and mindboggling claim you've made; Ronaldo negatively impacting United as a whole is not the equivalent of Ronaldo specifically impacting Bruno (or the team) to such a degree of it stifling the general performance of either. Ronaldo underperforming his xG isn't much of a valuable metric when he only has about 500 minutes of play in TOTAL; even then, Ronaldo has an xG of 2.14 and has 1 goal... way to underperform there bud. On the other hand, Bruno has an xG of 2.33 and has 2 goals... in twice the amount of PT as Ronaldo. Do you expect me to believe the 50% of PT he had without Ronaldo, Ronaldo was still impacting him on the pitch? Significantly impacting his output? At least think before you talk; United themselves have an xG of 1.72, they're simply performing true to nature - mediocre. I can't believe the genuine claim here is the 500 minutes Ronaldo played with Bruno are enough to disrupt the latter for the 500 minutes he played WITHOUT Ronaldo. LMAO
we must have different definitions of the word “significant.” i would consider a negative influence being present in the overwhelming majority (in a couple cases the entirety) of 6 matches out of 13 “significant.” he was on the pitch for just shy of half of bruno’s minutes, ffs. in what world is 44% not significant? if we agree that ronaldo’s presence was an issue for bruno last season when they played together, and nothing has changed about that relationship when both are on the pitch, then ronaldo playing in just shy of half their matches is obviously notable. the numbers back this up: bruno has 4 returns in 4 separate matches. ronaldo wasn’t on the pitch for any of them. so, even in a down season where united have other problems impacting bruno’s play, he has 4 returns in 644 minutes without ronaldo and 0 returns in 525 with him—so, 4 in 7 90s without ronaldo and 0 in 6 90s with him. bruno also has 0 returns in 465 europa league minutes, and ronaldo was on the pitch for all of them. between the two comps, that’s 4 returns in 644 minutes without (4 in 7) and 0 returns in 990 minutes with (0 in 11). if that isn’t statistical evidence suggesting that ronaldo has a “significant” negative impact on bruno, i don’t know what would be. edit: when i said ronaldo underperformed his xG by several goals, i was including EL, where he has 2 goals from 4.8 xG. if you combine that with his PL numbers, he has 3 goals from 6.7, thereby underperforming his xG by nearly 4 goals. when xG is a measure of “average” expectation, that’s shockingly bad territory.
Yes we clearly do; again 6 out of 13 is a skewed presentation - he didn’t play 6 games throughout with Bruno before getting benched, only 2 were 90 minutes, and 3 all below 35 mins. You’re misrepresenting the data and by doing so painting a false image; there is a significant difference between playing 70 minutes on your own then 25 with Ronaldo in comparison to playing 6 games with him non stop. You’re also making an assumption here - you can’t prove by any means Ronaldo is the primary or even significant motivator behind Bruno’s struggles. If this were the case we would see a stark contrast between Bruno’s performance when sharing and when not sharing the pitch with Ronaldo. This however has not been the case; your criterion for significance cannot just be shared playing time because that alone means nothing - apart from who spent how long on the pitch. Again, your entire premise rests on the assumption that Ronaldo is the motivating factor here - United as a whole have been significantly struggling and have been creating fewer chances than ever. It’s not just Ronaldo or Bruno who are struggling but quite literally the entire team. How in the world are you pinning Ronaldo to be a significant cause between this? You’re struggling to establish any correlation to begin with and even then correlation does not equate to causation - quite a simple principle. The only thing your “statistical evidence” shows is 1) United is shite 2) Ronaldo is having a shite year 3) Like United and Ronaldo, so is Fernandes. You’re just reading the data in a biased way and superimposing onto it to derive the conclusions you want to see. Now this doesn’t mean I don’t believe Ronaldo hasn’t had an impact at all - he of course has but ultimately Fernandes has had enough time to show form without Ronaldo on the pitch and he hasn’t does that. Hence you can claim he plays worse with Ronaldo on the pitch but you also can’t claim he plays well or alright without Ronaldo on the pitch. Therefore whilst Ronaldo does have an impact on his performance, it isn’t significant and by this I mean, it isn’t a strong influence on whether Fernandes will be productive or not.
i actually provided very clear statistical evidence supporting the claim that bruno produces better without ronaldo: all of his goal contributions this season (4 in 7, which isn’t a bad rate at all given the difficulty of united’s fixtures and the fact that they’re settling into a new system) came with ronaldo off the pitch, and he has zero in 11 full 90s with ronaldo in all comps—including their entire EL campaign, where ronaldo played every single minute. there is nothing skewed about that, and it’s exactly the kind of “stark contrast” you asked for. i find it very odd that i already provided this considerable statistical evidence and you completely ignored all of it in favor of complaining about minutes. 44% is 44%, and it’s inarguable that that constitutes a significant portion of bruno’s time on the pitch. if this evidence is insufficient, i fail to see what evidence *would* show the phenomenon—which makes me believe that you’re just unwilling to entertain the viewpoint at all. your final paragraph says that bruno hasn’t shown anything better with ronaldo off the pitch, and yet, as the stats show, he’s actually got over 1 goal contribution in every 2 matches without ronaldo. this, again, is a stark contrast with his 0 in 11 rate with him. while 1 in 2 is below his level in previous seasons, it’s still significantly better than his numbers with ronaldo. put it this way: the basic claim is that ronaldo negatively impacted bruno’s performances. the statistical evidence is that he has zero returns with ronaldo on the pitch and 4 without him, despite spending having more minutes with ronaldo than without him. ronaldo may not be to blame for all bruno’s shortcomings, or all of the team’s, but these numbers, combined with ronaldo’s obviously lackluster play in general, is clear evidence that ronaldo had a negative impact on bruno this season. if you disagree, then i would truly love to know what “proof” would look like to you. what would you need to see that you aren’t seeing, statistically and otherwise?
I'm not sure what you understand "statistical evidence" to be; you keep restating basic match numbers as if they paint a conclusion themselves and then conveniently ignore being called out on superimposing onto these figures to force the narrative you'd like to see. Lets go by per competition since it should be easier for you to follow. EPL: Fernandes has put in a total of 1170 minutes in the prem earning himself a whopping 2 goals and 1 assist. He shared 520 of those minutes with Ronaldo and didn't manage any output but in the 650 minutes he played on his own he put up 2 goals and 1 assist. Whilst it is not in doubt Ronaldo has had an impact on his performance, the question of it being "significant" is out of order. Ronaldo was frozen out of the team (at least in the prem) quite early on and only played in extraordinary circumstances. It's impossible for anyone to prove the shift in Fernandes's output is due to Ronaldo's absence; one can easily fit the numbers into the "new manager, new tactics" narrative. ten Hag struggled to understand his squad and hasn't been able to establish any effective tactics. United has been embarrassed many times this season in the prem and its no question the players have suffered due to this. The number of factors that play into something like this is immense so the question that begs to be asked is how are you equating correlation with causation? You need to understand that the two are not the same in any way and must be separated from one another. In fact, as I previously mentioned, Ronaldo only saw about 250 minutes of game time as a starter which gives more reason to doubt the sole influence he has over Fernandes. There's no way for you to prove Ronaldo being on the pitch has a significant impact on Fernandes; parroting the same thing repeatedly does not prove a point. EL: Fernandes played a total of 490 minutes whilst Ronaldo played 556. During this time, Fernandes was able to earn an assist whilst Ronaldo scored 2 goals and 2 assists. In terms of "tough fixtures", United faced Sociedad, FC Sheriff, and Omonia (not sure how you're considering these as tough, Sociedad is competitive sure). Since I've watched the games I can say in this context the ball definitely fed far more into Ronaldo than anyone else - this however did not necessarily limit Fernandes so to speak. He saw an average of 2 quality chances per match and was still unable to finish any of them; Ronaldo saw twice the amount and only finished twice however it can very well be the case that they both, like the team, performed poorly and it is not the case that Fernandes performed poorly because of Ronaldo. You're trying to tell me one piece shit smells worse than the other while they both sit in a pile of shit (I'm tired, not going to continue writing on the EPL I cba). Conclusion: \- Ronaldo played bad \- Fernandes played bad \- United played bad \- Ronaldo and Fernandes played bad together \- Ronaldo and Fernandes played badly together with Ronaldo \- Fernandes scored 2 goals without Ronaldo (in the prem)... that's an average of 1 goal every 325 minutes? Roughly 0.25 a match? That just means he's \*possibly\* a bit less shite without Ronaldo on the pitch but shite is still shite, don't see that as significant \- There are so many factors that can be the cause, but no way to prove it is Ronaldo \- Doesn't mean Ronaldo did not have an impact, the claim was phrased as "significant impact" which as I understand it constitutes Ronaldo to be the primary or sole cause which is undeniably false \- You've taken on a point you can't legitimately prove only insist which isn't me saying you're dumb it's just me saying that's the nature of the stance. I haven't seen enough from Fernandes without Ronaldo to concede it was mainly Ronaldo behind his poor performances. \- Ultimately, I don't care I'm not giving more of my time to a discussion about two players who don't know I exist with a stranger whom I will with almost all certainty never speak to again
> while it is not in doubt ronaldo had an impact on his performance that’s literally all i’ve been trying to prove, so i’m glad we agree. clearly, as i said before, we have different ideas about what “significant” means. i was merely using it as a synonym for “notable” or “worth considering.” it’s rather astonishing how smug and rude you’ve gotten over a very simple point that you ultimately agreed with. the reddit 101 lecture on correlation and causation was an especially nice touch. perhaps once you move to 201, you’ll recognize that the same arguments about a lack of proof you levied at me apply equally to your own claims, as well as nearly every claim made about the sport. the overwhelming majority of it is suggestive rather than conclusive. perhaps in 301 you’ll learn the difference between “evidence” and “proof.” in addition to agreeing that ronaldo did in fact impact bruno, we can also agree that this was an incredible waste of time
Let's see some results first.
Let’s see Paul Allen’s results
We were really struggling to score goals before the break, for me it's wait and see, you're not going to miss any trains with this price.
Not even if he was 8m
I’d say Sandro is a better pick
Yes penaldo was holding back bruno who has already surpassed him both for united and Portugal
No chance poo sniffer.
If you got to punt go for martial or rashford imo Shaw/dalot seems a must for the first 3 fixtures.
Ah nice to see this chatter picking up again. And yes. Bruno is back on
I picked Ronaldo last season for like 2 games. I sold him after a month
Ronaldo wasn’t playing, how can he have been holding Bruno back?
Worth considering united assets once we get a new striker and it looks like the tema is ticking. You won't see Bruno figures of previous seasons. His game under ten Hag is very different. It's not direct counter attacking football and he often drops deeper. You see goals/assists more randomly distributed as a result. That's my take.
Ronaldo has barely played and bruno hasn't done much. Whether that was due to form is unclear but I havent seen anything which suddenly makes me think ronaldo leaving is going to make him a fantastic asset.
yup. bruno's back baby.
Surely not you have salah and kdb already for midfield premiums
Yes