Manchester United Spent £155m — and Still Missed the Midfield It Wanted
GOATIFYManchester United's £155 million summer midfield overhaul was supposed to make Michael Carrick's team more secure, more dynamic and better equipped to control difficult matches. Six Premier League games into the season, it is instead becoming a referendum on how the club chooses its targets. United have won once in the league, exited the League Cup and were booed during Saturday's 1–1 draw with Tottenham. A fresh report says senior figures privately acknowledge that the summer recruitment fell short of what they wanted.
The revealing detail is not simply that expensive players have struggled. It is that two of the three midfield arrivals — Youri Tielemans and Andrey Santos — were reportedly well below United's first-choice options. Carlos Baleba, the long-term target who finally made his league debut against Spurs, has only just become available to help. The result is a squad that cost substantial money to reshape without necessarily acquiring the balance its coaching staff originally sought.
That distinction matters. A signing can be talented, useful and reasonably priced while still being the wrong answer to the team's most urgent question. With Atlético Madrid and Leeds United next on the schedule, United need more than a debate about which recruitment decisions were defensible on paper. They need a midfield combination that can protect the defense, progress the ball and hold a lead.
Tielemans and Santos show why Plan B is not automatically a plan
The reported priority list is unusually instructive. United were interested in Elliot Anderson, Mateus Fernandes, Aurélien Tchouaméni and Atalanta's Éderson before ultimately bringing in Tielemans and Santos. Anderson had committed to Manchester City; Tottenham won the race for Fernandes; and the proposed Éderson move fell apart after a knee issue emerged during his medical. Those are different kinds of setbacks, but they all forced the club to reconsider how it would rebuild its midfield.
Tielemans arrived from Aston Villa for £35 million. He is a proven Premier League passer, a Belgium international and a player who can give a team control when he has the right defensive support. None of that automatically makes him a replacement for a ball-winning midfielder. At 29, he also sits outside the reported preferred recruitment age band of 22 to 26. That does not make the fee indefensible; it does mean United were buying immediate experience rather than a younger player who could grow into the role over several seasons.
His playing time has been substantial. Tielemans started United's first eight matches in all competitions, yet he was replaced by Baleba after 59 minutes against Tottenham. It would be simplistic to blame one midfielder for a poor collective start, especially when United's problems extend from their pressing shape to their ability to defend crosses late in games. But the change illustrated a real tactical dilemma: Tielemans offers craft and rhythm, while Baleba promises the recovery speed and physical reach United have often lacked.
Santos presents a different question. The 22-year-old cost about £50 million after moving from Chelsea, but he has played only 16 Premier League minutes since starting the opening defeat at Hull. A player cannot establish his value from the bench. At the same time, spending that much on a midfielder who is not yet central to the plan creates an obvious opportunity cost. United could have used that money and squad space to address another weak position, or to concentrate resources on a different midfield profile.
The lesson is not that every second-choice target becomes a mistake. Clubs miss targets constantly. The danger is treating a series of individual compromises as if they automatically combine into a coherent unit. A recruitment department has to ask whether its alternatives still solve the original tactical problem, not merely whether each player has a strong résumé.
Baleba offers a different midfield, but he cannot fix every gap
Baleba was the clearest exception to the reported fallback pattern. United had pursued the Cameroon international over more than one transfer window and finally completed a deal worth up to £70 million in August. His arrival was delayed on the pitch by an ankle injury, so the Tottenham draw offered a first meaningful look at how Carrick might use the most athletic member of his new midfield group.
Introduced for Tielemans in the 59th minute, Baleba gave United a different way to contest the middle of the pitch. He could cover ground more quickly, attack loose balls and move forward with the ball rather than relying only on passing lanes to escape pressure. The change did not produce a victory — Bryan Mbeumo scored in the 73rd minute before Dominic Solanke equalized in stoppage time — but it gave Carrick a practical alternative to a midfield that had too often looked short of power.
That matters when considering the shape around Bruno Fernandes and Kobbie Mainoo. Fernandes is most dangerous when he can receive between the lines and play forward, not when he must spend every possession retreating to repair the space behind him. Mainoo can help a team keep the ball, but he is not a one-man solution to every defensive transition. A fit Baleba can potentially take on more of the running and duel-winning that lets those players express their strengths. The key word is potentially: one substitute appearance is not enough evidence to declare a new combination solved.
There is also a risk in asking the most physically imposing player to compensate for structural weaknesses elsewhere. If the full-backs advance at the wrong time, the press is disconnected or the center-backs leave too much space between them, even an exceptional ball-winner will be dragged into impossible decisions. The late Tottenham equalizer showed how quickly a narrow lead can disappear when a team loses control of its defensive responsibilities.
Carrick's next test is therefore about partnerships and spacing rather than simply writing Baleba's name on the team sheet. Does he start beside Mainoo? Can Tielemans still provide a controlled passing option in matches where United expect to dominate the ball? How does Fernandes receive service without exposing the central defenders? Those questions will determine whether the summer's most expensive midfielder becomes a foundation or merely another individual talent asked to solve too much.
The missed left-back signing may be the clearest recruitment error
The midfield story becomes more troubling when placed beside United's defensive planning. Club officials reportedly explored a move for Newcastle left-back Lewis Hall but could not advance it. Hall subsequently signed a new Newcastle contract. United ended the window without the specialist left-back reinforcement they had considered, even as the squad's other options carried obvious fitness and role-management questions.
Luke Shaw missed three matches last month, while Patrick Dorgu is expected to be sidelined for several weeks after an injury on international duty. Shaw, now 31, is in the final year of his contract. Dorgu has been used in more than one position, including further forward before the window closed. That flexibility is useful until it becomes a reason not to recruit depth in a position where availability and defensive continuity are essential.
A weak left side can change how the whole team defends. The nearest midfielder may have to shuffle wider to cover a full-back, which opens central passing lanes. A winger may be asked to track deeper, reducing the team's ability to counterattack. Center-backs may have to step toward the touchline, making the penalty area harder to protect. None of these effects is inevitable, but they show why a missing specialist defender can undermine even an expensive midfield rebuild.
It is tempting to judge transfer windows only by the players who arrived. United's summer is a reminder that the absence of a player can be just as consequential. If the club considered Hall a priority and then could not secure an equivalent option, the resulting weakness should be part of the evaluation of the entire window. Spending £155 million does not guarantee that the most vulnerable area has been addressed.
The schedule gives Carrick little time to separate recruitment theory from match preparation. United visit Atlético Madrid in the Champions League on Tuesday, October 13, before traveling to Leeds on Sunday. Those opponents will ask different questions, but both can punish a side that fails to control the space between its midfield and back line. Baleba's recovery offers hope; Shaw and Dorgu's situations underline how limited the margin for error remains.
United do not need to write off Tielemans or Santos to admit the summer plan was incomplete. Both have qualities that can still contribute over a long season, and Baleba's delayed introduction may change the balance of the midfield substantially. But recruitment has to be assessed as a system. Three midfield additions are not the same thing as three answers to the problems a team actually has.
The uncomfortable question for United is whether the compromises made after missing preferred targets left Carrick with a squad that is simultaneously expensive and short of the right combinations. A run of better performances could ease the pressure quickly. Until then, the gap between what United intended to buy and what they ended up with will remain central to explaining their slow start.
