Difficult to know, from where most of us are sitting, whether Jadon Sancho has been genuinely worryingly depressed, following his difficult time are Manchester United, or if he’s ‘more simply(?)’ been cheesed-off at his various demotions.

Both scenarios are unfortunate, but only one of them legitimately invokes our sympathy. Either way, and let’s be clear, there may be lots of ways, in this peculiarly contemporary saga – so wise to bin the binaries medium-pronto, yes? – one of few incontrovertible truths here may be the one about how Sancho played his way out of contention. He was poor, on the pitch. But how much of that was a function of stiff, unskilled management of a sensitive or complex soul and how much is down to raw or rather dumb brattishness or lack of application from the player? And, hang on, is that already sounding like another dynamic, oversimplistic duo? ‘Misunderstood’, or ‘Typical Modern Player: lightweight?’

Time-out – early. It can be fun and even invigorating to latch onto View A and judge: or B. It’s just not clever. Deep breath; look in mirror; extend tongue out for inspection. Sniff and re-gather.

We might suspect that Ten Hag is as impassively wooden as his clipped Dutch accent makes him sound. We know that Sancho’s poor timekeeping has been noted over a period – not just at United. But he doesn’t look or feel like a rebel-without-a-clue. Some of us wonder whether the lad was really that good when he came in, or if his stint in Germany was dotted with inconsistency or peripherality. We didn’t really see. Was he truly high-level brilliant, or merely sometimes electrifying? If the former, does over-expectation figure in the matrix, from early-doors?

We ask this because from the moment he stepped out for M U, he rarely looked a top player. Sancho – or this Sancho – could neither do that twisting-the-blood thing nor convincingly play within himself, like an elite player-in-transit might, before finding his or her groove. He looked so short of confidence that even gearing-down to a ‘simple game’ looked beyond him.

We know that (or hear that) a man-hug can sometimes sort this out. The proverbial ‘arm around’. Klopp is likely to be a master at this; Ten Hag, less so. But this does not at all mean that Sancho wasn’t getting enough love, in those early days. He may have been. And besides, for all the legitimate talk of confidence and wellbeing, there is an argument that *in this particular environment*, a measure of resilience is a requirement. Professional sport searches for and supports confidence and makes demands of it. The competitor needs to be resilient: they know this. Theoretically.

An individual may well be delusional about their own contribution but they are aware of what is required. Everywhere, the word ‘expectations’. Who gets in their ears, from club, per-group or family, when times then become challenging, is therefore important. Who’s ‘around?’ How is the challenge met?

Big Brutal Picture. The very nature of ‘form’ – real, constructed or subjectively-viewed – implies judgement and consequence. Sancho plays repeatedly below par and (despite help/support/concern for his wellbeing) he has to be dropped. Whatever the family or agent are saying. Dropped. Not for being a bad man or a weak man or anything else but for playing below par. The reasons are important… but secondary. They will be attended to, but for now, it’s Arsenal away. If, after time, the club hierarchy become displeased by poor attitude or timekeeping or lack of commitment to training; or if the player sparks any difficulties in relationships through petulance or perceived arrogance, then that’s different. Things will deteriorate. The exclusion-through-performance becomes exclusion for misdemeanour.

This will be, weirdly, both an absurdly cushy environment and a disciplined one. (That mad binary is true). Players both ‘don’t know they’re born’ *and* are under a cruel spotlight. Training sessions filmed; contributions checked and logged; bodies sat-navved. Sancho has seemed too bland to fit the role of Champagne Charlie; too quiet to be a subversive. And yet he was banished, to train ‘elsewhere’, suggesting something personal in the drift. Words must have been said.

Of course the club has responsibilities (as well as financial incentives) towards keeping players happy and well. Sancho was a signature investment; whatever the reasons for his poor return, it seems certain that substantial efforts, whether by personal interventions or professional support, will have been made initially, towards appeasing any issues and building ways back to expected form. At Point X, though, a falling-out occurred – a few unwise or spiteful words from either player or manager or both. Given the power-distribution in the relationship, this could only go one way. Ten Hag was right to look to offload.

Leaving, of course, more questions – principally, I would argue, about the younger man. Like who has been around him? He doesn’t appear to have the strut or inclination of a rebel. Who’s in his ear? He was dropped, for playing badly or to little effect. Fine. Work hard, play your way back in. But no. Before we know it trust and those key relationships – that key relationship! – are gone. Busted. We lurch into less edifying territory.

How truly vulnerable has Sancho been? Why this MASSIVE FALL? Why the sense of animosity, as opposed to shared purpose? Oh – and have people in either camp – or both – been, yaknow, *clutching at agendas?*

This dispiriting episode may yet prove more unsatisfactory if it turns out the player could have bitten his lip and knuckled down but for other influences. Or is he really just a bit young, a bit deluded… a bit unable to accept the non-negotiables?

Sancho will really have to work to restore himself, now. I genuinely hope he can.

Pic from Daily Telegraph.