Sesko, Guirassy, and Manchester United's January Gamble

Inside my commentary booth, I have grown used to one thing: the biggest problems of a football club never appear in the first half. They appear in the eightieth minute, when the legs stop listening to reason, and when people realize they have not prepared for what was predicted months earlier.

Manchester United drew 1-1 with Fulham at Craven Cottage on an afternoon when Benjamin Sesko was not in the matchday squad. To the casual viewer, that was just a small line on the information board. To me, after forty-four years of watching football, it was a signal. A stadium without singing is where I hear the truth most clearly, and Craven Cottage that afternoon told me this club stands before a question they have deliberately postponed all summer.

The question is simple: does Manchester United actually have a real centre-forward?

What is notable is that Sesko has been absent several times since joining the club. This is not the first instance. And that is precisely what turns a single absence into a structural problem. During a transfer window, people tend to measure events by transfer fees. But I learned from the Rostov nights and the Volksparkstadion nights that the truth usually lies in the gaps, not in the numbers.

Context: A summer of choices, an autumn of paying the price

Let us rewind to the summer. Manchester United decided not to buy an additional striker. That decision was not impulsive. It was built on a reasonable assumption: the club still had Joshua Zirkzee, Bryan Mbeumo, and Matheus Cunha — three names that could be deployed as centre-forwards in different situations. Transfer resources, therefore, were directed at midfield, which the leadership considered the weakest structural line.

This was a decision about resource allocation, not ignorance. In modern football, a club with a limited budget must choose where to patch. Buying a sixty-million-pound striker while the midfield remains torn is a mistake many big clubs have made. Manchester United under INEOS seems to try to avoid that.

But there is a difference between a reasonable strategy and a survivable strategy. A reasonable strategy assumes the existing people will hold. A survivable strategy assumes they might break. And at the number nine position, this club has never had a truly reliable backup plan.

Zirkzee is a technically gifted player, capable of linking play, but not a finisher in the traditional sense. Mbeumo is a winger who can play high, but placing him centrally takes away speed and the ability to create breakthroughs from wide areas. Cunha is a second striker, a player operating between the lines, a disruptor of opposing defensive structures through controlled chaos, not through stability. None of these three is an authentic target man with box instincts and reliable aerial ability.

So when Sesko is absent, the club does not merely lose a player. The club loses a model of attack. The difference between "with Sesko" and "without Sesko" is not in the goals scored. It lies in how the entire attacking system operates — the tempo of passes, the destination of crosses, and how the midfield chooses whom to serve.

I have been following Manchester United's matches in this early part of the season with a notebook. What I record is not the scoreline but the number of balls delivered into the box in crossing situations. With a genuine centre-forward, that number is higher, and more importantly, the quality of those crosses changes: wingers know that if they deliver into the right zone, someone will be there. When no one is there, wingers begin to hesitate, and that hesitation spreads through the entire attacking structure.

Every pass is a confession, every conceded goal an unspoken sorrow. And in this case, what the club is confessing is this: they did not prepare for a scenario that they themselves were the most likely to predict.

The number nine problem: Not just a position, but a philosophy

In football, the number nine position is the strangest. It is where psychology and technique meet at the most tense point. A striker can play well for ten games and be remembered for one miss. A striker can play dimly for ten games and be celebrated for one decisive goal.

But behind that emotional story lies a dry tactical reality: the club needs to know how it is attacking. Without a genuine centre-forward, every attacking option must transform. Crosses become meaningless. Long balls are wasted. And combination plays at the edge of the box lack the player who "drags" the opposing defence, so the space the midfield needs never opens.

I have rewatched Manchester United's matches this season many times. What I noticed is a paradox: this club controls the ball well, but controls it in areas of little danger. They pass back and forth in front of the opposing defence like a musician reading a score without daring to step into the crescendo. The absence of a genuine centre-forward is one of the reasons.

This is not a problem unique to Manchester United. Over the past two decades, European football has undergone a crisis of the number nine. Traditional centre-forwards are increasingly rare. Academies train attacking players to be more versatile, more technical, more flexible — but also more ambiguous. Young players are taught to play in multiple positions, but no one teaches them instinct inside the box. That instinct is increasingly scarce, and therefore increasingly expensive.

That is why strikers like Erling Haaland, Victor Osimhen, or Harry Kane become strategic assets. And that is also why the question about Sesko matters so much.

Sesko: Between potential and fitness

Benjamin Sesko is one of the most highly rated young players at the striker position in recent years. He has ideal height, surprising speed for a player of his build, and the ability to finish with both feet. In terms of potential, he is a perfect centre-forward for modern football.

But potential only has value if it is converted into reality on the pitch. And to convert, the player must first be on the pitch.

Sesko has been absent several times since joining the club. His fitness issue is becoming a topic of concern at Old Trafford. During the transfer window, when all eyes turn to buying and selling rumours, fans often ignore a reality: the club may already have the solution within its squad, if that solution is fit enough.

The problem becomes complex from here. Young players with injury histories are not unusual in modern football. The intensity of Premier League football, the number of matches, the physical pressure — all create a harsh environment for young bodies still developing. But for Manchester United, this is not a problem that can wait. This is a problem that must be solved.

If Sesko's fitness continues to raise concerns, the need to bring in a new striker in January will become more urgent than ever. And that is when the name Serhou Guirassy appears.

Guirassy: The man back on the list

Serhou Guirassy is one of the most efficient goalscorers in Europe over the past two seasons. Manchester United have followed his development since his Stuttgart days in the Bundesliga. That is a long-term monitoring process, not a hasty reaction.

At Dortmund, Guirassy continues to maintain impressive scoring form. He has scored four goals in six matches, and even put the ball in the net twice against Paderborn before those goals were disallowed. These numbers do not lie. Football never lies, only viewers deceive themselves. A striker who scores regularly in a league as intense as the Bundesliga is a striker who is real.

At thirty years of age, Guirassy carries experience and the maturity needed. He is not a long-term project. He is a short-term solution, and sometimes a big club needs exactly that.

But there is one notable detail in this story. In the summer, Guirassy had a forty-million-euro release clause — equivalent to approximately eight hundred and seventeen billion Vietnamese dong at the time. Remarkably, no top club activated it.

This is one of the phenomena I find most interesting during a transfer window. A player who scores efficiently, with a pre-determined transfer fee, was not bought. Why?

There are many answers. Some clubs did not believe in his ability to adapt to a new league at thirty. Others prioritized younger players. And some, perhaps, simply did not correctly value the scarcity of goals in modern football.

This makes the January story far more interesting.

Dortmund has changed its stance

The scenario has changed. The release clause is gone. Dortmund no longer has an obligation to sell Guirassy at a pre-determined price. This means the German club can demand a much higher fee if an offer arrives in January.

Dortmund also has reasons to keep this striker. In modern football, a striker who scores regularly is not merely a player — he is part of the infrastructure. Losing him mid-season is not just losing goals. It is losing the stability of an attacking system built around him.

Moreover, Dortmund is witnessing something interesting: Guirassy and Fabio Silva, who previously competed for a spot, can now combine effectively when played together. This combination is a tactical advantage no coach wants to give up mid-season. When two strikers can play alongside each other, opposing defences face more complex problems. Dortmund will not easily surrender such an advantage.

So any January offer from Manchester United will face a club with every reason and every power to say no.

A gamble model: Price and age

This is where the story becomes a strategic gamble, not merely a transfer transaction.

Manchester United stands before the problem of both a short-term solution and a long-term vision. Bringing in a thirty-year-old striker with strong scoring form could be an immediate fix for the club's problem. Guirassy knows how to score. He knows how to move inside the box. He knows how to endure the pressure of a big match.

But that comes with risks. A large investment in a thirty-year-old player without a high resale value may conflict with INEOS's long-term transfer strategy. We have seen what happens to clubs that bet on older players and lose their ability to restructure the squad.

Add to that the injury history. Guirassy has had fitness issues in the past. Not many, but enough for a club to consider. In football, every euro spent on a thirty-year-old is a euro you cannot recover if that player is injured.

That is the nature of the gamble. Manchester United must balance the urgent need up front with the financial risks of such a deal.

Contrarian angle: Why January is more dangerous than summer

There is a common misconception in football: January is the time to patch holes. In reality, January is the time to face mistakes made in the summer.

There is a basic principle in sports business: if you have to buy in January, you are usually buying at a higher price. Not because winter players are of lower quality, but because you are in a weak position. You need. And when people know you need, they tell you a different price.

This is the biggest tactical blind spot I have noticed in how big clubs handle January. They think they are solving a problem. But in reality, they are solving the consequences of a problem that was predicted.

Manchester United's problem is not that they lack a striker. Their problem is that they believed three players of different styles could compensate for the absence of a genuine centre-forward. That is a conceptual mistake, not a personnel one.

The old look back to understand how far they have come, the wise look forward to know what they lack. Manchester United is at a moment when it must look forward, and what it clearly lacks is a player who can score twenty goals a season and stay on the pitch for most matches.

What is counterintuitive here is this: the problem is not whether to buy Guirassy. The problem is that, whether or not they buy Guirassy, they remain in a cycle where each transfer window becomes a race against time. And such races are never won with stopgap solutions.

Revisiting the lesson of player fitness

In the history of modern football, there is a truth people often forget: the strongest club is not the one with the most stars. The strongest club is the one with the fewest weaknesses.

And one of the biggest weaknesses of a football club is dependence on a player with an unstable fitness history.

This does not mean Sesko is a "fragile" player. It means the club must have a backup plan. In modern football, no club can survive an entire season relying on a single player in the most important position.

This is where INEOS's transfer policy will be tested. Not only by Manchester United, but by the entire football industry.

Looking at other options

If Manchester United decides Guirassy is not the right choice, they will have to look elsewhere. The January market is always scarce in high-quality strikers. That is a simple fact of supply and demand.

Big European clubs all know this. Paris Saint-Germain knows. Bayern Munich knows. Arsenal knows. And because everyone knows, everyone tends to hold their high-quality strikers tighter in January.

So if Manchester United wants to solve the problem thoroughly, they need to start preparing now. Not buying, but monitoring. Not negotiating, but building a dossier. Not committing, but preparing for opportunities that may arise.

This is how truly successful clubs build their squads. Not through spectacular deals, but through meticulous preparation for decisive moments.

Why this is a gamble on an entire season

For Manchester United, January this year is not just a transfer window. It is a moment when they must decide on the entire identity of their club.

If they buy Guirassy, they choose a short-term solution, a bet on experience, and an acceptance that they will not have a young striker at peak form for many years to come.

If they do not buy Guirassy and continue with what they have, they choose patience with existing players and accept that the season may become difficult if Sesko continues to have fitness issues.

Both are reasonable choices. And both carry significant risks.

On the broader market context

One thing I have noticed in recent years is that the January transfer window is becoming increasingly important. Not because big deals happen, but because small deals with big impact happen.

The most successful clubs in January are those that prepared in the summer. They do not wait until they need to buy someone. They already have a list, and when the moment arrives, they simply act.

Manchester United, in the case of Guirassy, seems to have such a list. They have followed him since his Stuttgart days. This is a positive sign. But a list only has value if it can be converted into action.

What will determine the rationality of the deal?

When January arrives, there are three questions Manchester United will have to answer.

First, what will Sesko's fitness condition be? If he returns and plays consistently, the need to buy a striker will decrease significantly. If not, that need will become urgent.

Second, what price will Dortmund demand? With the release clause gone, the transfer fee may rise considerably. This will directly affect the rationality of the deal.

Third, is there any other opportunity on the market? If there is a younger striker of comparable quality at a more reasonable price, Manchester United may choose a different direction.

Looking back at what has passed

In forty-four years of watching football, I have learned one thing: decisions made hastily in January usually leave consequences for years.

Clubs that buy thirty-year-old strikers in January at high prices usually regret it not because the player performs poorly, but because they lose flexibility for the future. They are bound by a large contract, and when the player loses value, they cannot sell and cannot buy anyone else.

This is one of the reasons transfer strategy is becoming increasingly complex. A deal is not just a deal. It is a commitment to the future, an influence on the wage structure, a mark on the market.

Thoughts on the value of a goal

There is one thing I always think about when analysing striker deals. A goal is a strange thing. We talk about goals as if they have absolute value. But in reality, the value of a goal depends on context.

A goal in a title-deciding match has a different value from a goal in a match with no remaining significance. A goal against a strong opponent has a different value from a goal against a weak opponent. A goal in the ninetieth minute has a different value from a goal in the first minute.

This is why evaluating a striker is much harder than the numbers on paper. And this is also why striker transfer decisions are always the hardest.

Guirassy can score. But can he score in a decisive Premier League match against a tightly organized defence? This is a question only time can answer. And that is precisely what makes the nature of this deal risky.

On the pressure of time

Manchester United, like many big clubs, faces a particular pressure of time. Not the pressure of one season. The pressure of an era.

After years of transition and leadership changes, this club needs to prove it can compete at the top again. And that, alas, depends on goals. Many goals.

This raises a philosophical question I think is central to the whole issue: should a club build slowly, or accelerate progress by buying "ready-to-play" players?

The answer depends on the specific situation. But there is a general principle: if you already have a foundation, build on it. If you have nothing, buy the foundation.

Manchester United has a foundation. That foundation includes a reinforced defence, an invested midfield, and an attack with potential. But that foundation has a hole. And that hole is at the number nine position.

What is interesting is that a hole in this position can affect the entire club. Unlike a hole in defence, where defenders can cover for each other, a hole at number nine cannot be covered. If no one is there, no one is there.

On what Sesko can offer

I think we need to be fair to Benjamin Sesko. He is a young player, and young players need time. His absence does not necessarily mean he cannot be part of the solution. It only means he cannot be the entire solution, at least for now.

In football, placing expectations on a young player is a double-edged sword. Expectations can be motivation. But if expectations exceed the player's development capacity, they can become a burden.

I have witnessed many young talents destroyed not because they lacked talent, but because their club had no backup plan. When a young player is forced to play before they are ready, they do not develop. They only endure. And enduring is not developing.

This is why having an experienced striker as backup, or replacement, can be one of the most important decisions for Sesko's development. An older figure can protect the young player from excessive pressure, while giving the young player time to learn.

Transfer day and what may happen

If Manchester United decides to pursue Guirassy, this deal will not be simple. Dortmund will not easily give up a striker in good form. And this means any agreement will take time.

Meanwhile, the market will continue to exert pressure. Other clubs will monitor. Rumours will appear. And Manchester United will have to decide whether they are willing to pay a high price for a short-term solution.

This is one of those situations where leadership experience matters more than ever. Not experience in football, but experience in making decisions under pressure.

Looking at the whole system

One thing that is clear to me when watching Manchester United this season is this: this club is in a period of tactical transition. They are trying to build a style of play, but that style is not yet complete.

In such periods, having a genuine centre-forward can be one of the most important factors in building a style of play. A striker does not only score. They are an anchor for the entire attacking system.

When you have a genuine centre-forward, you can build an attacking plan around them. You can cross into the box with confidence. You can play long when needed. You can play short when there is space. That variety is a tactical advantage.

Without a genuine centre-forward, you are forced to play a certain way. And when the opponent knows how you will play, defending against you becomes easier.

On INEOS decisions

INEOS's transfer strategy at Manchester United is one of the most watched topics in modern football. Not only because they manage a big club, but because they are trying to implement a new management model.

That model is based on patience, long-term development, and financial balance. These are good principles. But good principles can conflict with urgent needs.

One of the biggest challenges for this model is handling emergency situations without breaking long-term principles. In Manchester United's case, the emergency is the striker position.

If the club decides to buy Guirassy, they will have to explain how that fits the long-term strategy. If they decide not to buy, they will have to explain how they will solve the problem at number nine.

Thoughts on what cannot be measured

In football, we tend to focus on what can be measured: goals, assists, minutes played. But there are things that cannot be measured that are equally important.

One of those is presence. A striker does not only score. They also create space for teammates, create pressure on the opposing defence, and create confidence for the whole team.

Guirassy has that presence. It is something the numbers cannot fully measure. That is why evaluating him solely on goals is a simplification.

But presence also has a price. When a player has a large presence, the club may become dependent on them. And dependence, as we have seen, is one of the biggest weaknesses of a football club.

On adaptability

One of the most important questions for any transfer deal is this: can the player adapt to a new league?

With Guirassy, this question is especially important. Bundesliga and Premier League are two different leagues in intensity, speed, and style. A striker who succeeds in the Bundesliga will not necessarily succeed in the Premier League.

But Guirassy has some advantages. He has experience playing in different leagues. He has demonstrated his adaptability everywhere he has gone. And he has a quality not every striker has: patience.

Patience is an important quality for a striker in the Premier League. In a league where opportunities can come and go in an instant, staying calm is a skill. And that is a skill Guirassy has shown over many years.

Looking to the future

Whatever the final decision is, one thing is clear: Manchester United is at an important moment in its squad-building process.

If they can solve the problem at number nine, they can become a truly competitive club. If not, they will continue to struggle with the same problems.

In football, the same problems tend to return. That is why solving them thoroughly matters so much.

A club does not need to be perfect to succeed. But a club needs to have answers to basic questions. And the most basic question in football is this: who will score?

What I believe

When I sit in my commentary booth, I often ask myself what makes a great club. Not trophies. Not contracts. It is self-understanding.

A great club knows who it is, knows what it has, and knows what it needs. They do not try to become another club. They try to become the best version of themselves.

Manchester United is in the process of discovering that. And in that process, decisions like the potential deal for Guirassy are tests of that understanding.

Do they understand that they need a genuine striker? Do they understand that a short-term solution should not break a long-term strategy? Do they understand that sometimes, the difference between success and failure lies in a single decision at a single moment?

On the art of preparation

In forty-four years of watching football, I have learned that success in football is not about brilliant moments. It is about seemingly ordinary moments that have been carefully prepared.

A well-prepared club will not be surprised by difficult situations. They will have a plan. They will have a backup. They will have someone ready to step in when someone else steps out.

This sounds simple. But in reality, it is one of the hardest aspects of managing a club. Because to prepare well, you must predict the future. And the future, in football, is always uncertain.

However, one thing is predictable: injuries will happen. Form will fluctuate. Players will be absent. These are not surprises. These are certainties.

So a well-prepared club is one that knows how to face those certainties. They do not passively wait. They actively prepare.

Manchester United, with Sesko's situation and the considerations about Guirassy, is at a moment when their preparation will be tested. Not in a match, but in a transfer window.

On the value of a choice

Ultimately, every transfer decision is a choice. And every choice has its price.

The price of buying Guirassy can be measured in money. But it can also be measured in what the club has to give up to get him.

The price of not buying Guirassy can be measured in points lost during the season. And those points can be the difference between a successful season and a failed one.

This is the nature of decisions in football. There is no perfect choice. Only better and worse choices.

Takeaway: A club cannot live on hope

When I left Craven Cottage that afternoon, what I carried with me was not the 1-1 result. What I carried was the feeling of a club trying to find an answer to a question they should have answered long ago.

If Sesko's fitness continues to raise concerns, and if Manchester United decides it needs a new striker in January, then the Guirassy deal will be one of the most important decisions of the season. Not because Guirassy is an outstanding player. But because that deal will reveal something about how this club thinks.

A club cannot live on hope. They must live on decisions. And the best decisions are those made on the basis of self-understanding.

Every match is a life: some collapse, some rise, in a single breath. And in that breath, Manchester United will have to decide who they are.

The question I leave to you, followers of football: if you were the decision-maker at Old Trafford, would you choose patience or urgency? Would you bet on the future or solve the present? And most importantly, can you live with the consequences of that choice, when the season ends and the table says everything?

Football never lies. Only decision-makers deceive themselves.