Jump to content
IGNORED

How good is Massengo, what do we know?


reddogkev

Recommended Posts

Forgive me starting another page about our exciting new French recruit, but there's so much to wade through on his signing thread, it's taking me forever to sift through it.

Basically, I want to try to better understand who he is and what he is going to bring to City.

Can anyone share any knowledge / details you may have learnt about him and the expectation of his future prospects.

Also, just what the hell is his preferred midfield position, defensive or attacking?   Will he be used in a 3 with Josh and Nagy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The back ground to this lads career , he was considered the jewel in the Monaco academy.

During the terrible spell they had under Thierry Henry they played their  youngsters who , à but like ours during our fall to the fourth division, gave it their all .

He is youngest French player to have played in the Champions League ( where he wasn’t at all phased ) and has represented France at U17 and U18 levels ( including the Tournament de Toulon where he was scouted by City ) .

Monaco’s squad is top heavy , around 60 players contracted to them and 8 million was too good to refuse .

He is considered as a defensive midfielder , which probably means LJ will play him up top on his own .

He is confident and will boss the team, asking for give and goes . 

He has a huge , and I mean huge , potential. If this lad performs like he can he will be in the Prem with or without us in less than eighteen months .

Think precocious like Lloyd Kelly and you’re  getting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is that sources I've seen have Massengo as either a CDM or CM, not a CAM, yet I thought LJ brought him in to play in a similar role to Palmer/Szmodics? Unless he sees him as a more attacking-minded central midfielder, to play alongside Nagy in a midfield two, behind a three-man attacking midfield. That would make more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lympsham Red said:

What I don't understand is that sources I've seen have Massengo as either a CDM or CM, not a CAM, yet I thought LJ brought him in to play in a similar role to Palmer/Szmodics? Unless he sees him as a more attacking-minded central midfielder, to play alongside Nagy in a midfield two, behind a three-man attacking midfield. That would make more sense.

All French players are comfortable on the ball, they are coached to play out from the back so he could  be shifted about a bit but at Monaco he was a defensive midfielder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

The back ground to this lads career , he was considered the jewel in the Monaco academy.

During the terrible spell they had under Thierry Henry they played their  youngsters who , à but like ours during our fall to the fourth division, gave it their all .

He is youngest French player to have played in the Champions League ( where he wasn’t at all phased ) and has represented France at U17 and U18 levels ( including the Tournament de Toulon where he was scouted by City ) .

Monaco’s squad is top heavy , around 60 players contracted to them and 8 million was too good to refuse .

He is considered as a defensive midfielder , which probably means LJ will play him up top on his own .

He is confident and will boss the team, asking for give and goes . 

He has a huge , and I mean huge , potential. If this lad performs like he can he will be in the Prem with or without us in less than eighteen months .

Think precocious like Lloyd Kelly and you’re  getting there.

Outstanding, many thanks for the info, Major.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lympsham Red said:

What I don't understand is that sources I've seen have Massengo as either a CDM or CM, not a CAM, yet I thought LJ brought him in to play in a similar role to Palmer/Szmodics? Unless he sees him as a more attacking-minded central midfielder, to play alongside Nagy in a midfield two, behind a three-man attacking midfield. That would make more sense.

I think LJ sees him as a box to box player, but a central midfielder rather than a ‘number 10’ like Palmer or Szmodics. 

I think if we’re playing with a midfield 2 it’ll be one of Massengo and Brownhill with Nagy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Super said:

Just remember he is only 18. Lets not heap too much pressure on the lad.

True, but if he was good enough for the Champions League with Monaco, then the pressure of appeasing us here in Bristol should be nothing in comparison!

I hope he will thrive on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TBW said:

Your link is a Wikipedia link stating 2018, this is BBC from 2016.

Screenshot_20190809-174800_Samsung Internet.jpg

Comes down to a common misunderstanding. Decades are counted in tens and there was no year zero. For that reason a decade starts on the first day of a year ending in 1 and ends on the last day of a year ending in ten and a century starts on the first day of the year ending in 1 and ends on the last day of the year ending with a 100. So the 20th Century started on January 1st 1901 and ended on December 31st 2000. 

Kean was the first player born in the year 2000 or later to play in the Champions League BUT Massango is the first player born this century to do so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Comes down to a common misunderstanding. Decades are counted in tens and there was no year zero. For that reason a decade starts on the first day of a year ending in 1 and ends on the last day of a year ending in ten and a century starts on the first day of the year ending in 1 and ends on the last day of the year ending with a 100. So the 20th Century started on January 1st 1901 and ended on December 31st 2000. 

Kean was the first player born in the year 2000 or later to play in the Champions League BUT Massango is the first player born this century to do so. 

This can’t be right. Surely. Things go in decades, don’t they?

The 80’s were 01/01/1980 to 31/12/1989. 

The 90’s were 01/01/1990 to 31/12/1999. 

Surely 01/01/2000 is the start of the ‘naughties’ decade. 

The naughties decade, all 10 years of it, must surely all be in the same century? 

This is weird. 

If 01/01/2000 was the first day of a new millennium and the first day of a new decade, then it must also be the first day of a new century. Surely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Comes down to a common misunderstanding. Decades are counted in tens and there was no year zero. For that reason a decade starts on the first day of a year ending in 1 and ends on the last day of a year ending in ten and a century starts on the first day of the year ending in 1 and ends on the last day of the year ending with a 100. So the 20th Century started on January 1st 1901 and ended on December 31st 2000. 

Kean was the first player born in the year 2000 or later to play in the Champions League BUT Massango is the first player born this century to do so. 

Mind. Effin’. Blown.

 

bed for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry said:

This can’t be right. Surely. Things go in decades, don’t they?

The 80’s were 01/01/1980 to 31/12/1989. 

The 90’s were 01/01/1990 to 31/12/1999. 

Surely 01/01/2000 is the start of the ‘naughties’ decade. 

The naughties decade, all 10 years of it, must surely all be in the same century? 

This is weird. 

If 01/01/2000 was the first day of a new millennium and the first day of a new decade, then it must also be the first day of a new century. Surely? 

Indeed. But 01/01/2000 was neither the first day of a new millennium nor the first day of a new decade.

You are right that we talk about decades in terms of the number they start with - the 70s, 80s, 90s etc but a decade actually runs until the year that starts with a zero.

I do get that this is massively counter-intuitive and it is hard work to get your head around. Best way I can explain it is simply to think what happens when you count to ten. You don’t start with 0 and then go 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, which is ten numbers. You skip zero and start on 1.

Similarly “Year Zero” never happened. The year after 1 BC was 1 AD so you start counting decades from January 1st 0001. Then the tenth year - so first decade - ends  on December 31st 0010. And then you count ten more and on and on. So a decade ends after each year which is a multiple of ten.

This is commonly misunderstood - so much so that we celebrated the Millennium a year early when 1999 became 2000 even though - given we had started the first millennium on January 1st 0001 because there was no year zero - the first millennium ended on December 31st 1000 and the second one began on January 1st 1001 so actually ended on December 31st 2000.

Ps. For anyone wondering, Yes, I am indeed unbelievably good fun at parties!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Indeed. But 01/01/2000 was neither the first day of a new millennium nor the first day of a new decade.

Actually it could be and is... a decade is purely a period of 10 years and can be started from any point. Eg;

"For a decade he has been a fan of Bristol City"

"It has been almost two decades since Rovers were above City in the football league"

Mathematically you are correct but modern society typically defines historical decades (due to it being more culturally relevant) as 30-39 (thirties), 70-79(seventies), etc. The same applies to a millennium which is a period of 1000 years.

I'm fun at parties too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...