Manchester United’s present is a clear reflection of internal disorganisation and a lack of answers at key moments. The season has been disappointing from several angles. The squad failed to respond, the manager failed to sustain a plan and the club fell into a spiral of mediocrity uncharacteristic of its history. In the table, their position says it all: 16th in the Premier League. Worse still, defeat in the Europa League final finally buried any hope of continental qualification. Meanwhile, off-field tensions only aggravated an already complicated situation.
Public criticism soon followed, and the fans lost patience. The press was harsh and former players named players. One of the most discussed was Rasmus Hojlund. The striker, who arrived with high expectations, has had a very poor season. His numbers are low, his involvement in the game is limited, and his offensive presence is easily diluted. The technical errors are repeated, the lack of synchronisation with his teammates is evident, and the frustration shows. The goals didn’t come when they were most needed, and that has consequences.
Gary Neville’s comments on [It’s Called Soccer via TBR Football](https://tbrfootball.com/gary-neville-says-man-utd-have-a-player-who-genuinely-cant-control-a-ball-now/) about Rasmus Hojlund were blunt and revealing. He didn’t just say the striker was underperforming—he painted a picture of a player out of his depth. Neville pointed out that Hojlund struggles with basic aspects of forward play. He criticised Hojlund’s inability to control the ball properly or make smart runs. Neville highlighted how little impact the striker had, not just because of poor service from teammates, but because of his own technical limitations.
> “Particularly Hojlund, he’s struggling like mad, the boy, he can’t control a ball, he can’t make a run, the service to him isn’t great. The reality of the performance for me, I wasn’t surprised by the team, but if Bruno’s not on his game then you’ve basically lost everything almost and Bruno probably had one of his most challenging games.”
I agree with the criticism, although the analysis needs to be subtle. Hojlund is not performing, and it’s not just a bad run of form. There are worrying symptoms: his ball control is weak, his reading of the game is slow, and his physicality, though powerful, does not translate into effectiveness. He cannot lead the attack of a club that aspires to compete with the best. The most logical thing to do would be to loan Hojlund out or even sell him if there is a market that values him.
To keep him as the only attacking option would be to repeat the same mistake. Manchester United must act intelligently. It needs a proven striker, one who knows how to play without the ball, who connects with the midfielders, who defines under pressure, and, at the same time, a project that does not depend only on individuals, but on a solid structure.
To become a competitive club again, the team need to rebuild the midfield, and cleanse the dressing room of passive attitudes. The sporting management must move judiciously, not by names but by suitable profiles. From another point of view, it can be argued that Hojlund still has room, that he is paying for the mistakes of a non-functioning team. If he had a more structured attacking environment, perhaps his performance would be different. But even if that were true, the club can’t keep betting on ‘maybe’. It is time for clear decisions; modern football is unforgiving of eternal waiting. Either you contribute, or you go.