While this isn’t at all a criticism of how well David De Gea or Anders Lindegaard may or may not be doing so far during their careers at Old Trafford, it is a point towards the decision to let Ben Foster leave Manchester United.
At the time of his departure in 2010, Foster had a further three years to run on a four-year extension he had signed with the Red Devils in 2009, showing that the club certainly had faith in him once upon a time.
However, mistakes in the Community Shield and Manchester derby meant that the then-England international once again fell behind Edwin van der Sar in the pecking order, much to his disapproval.
If Saturday's display was evidence of anything, it was that despite the 2-0 deficit, Foster is one of the brighter lights in West Brom's backline and is back to the playing best that first saw him court a starting spot at the Theatre of Dreams.
Upon his move to Birmingham City, it was no secret that Foster wanted to play first-team football and, as the Daily Mail reported in December 2010, he wasn’t a fan of the “cut-throat mentality” in place at Old Trafford.
However, while Foster may have been aching for a starting spot, his talent was in question at the time, and he was obviously fazed by the reality of playing second fiddle to one as great as Van der Sar.
Two years later and Foster is one of the Premier League’s most consistent stoppers, having kept clean sheets in a third of the games he’s featured in this season, something De Gea cannot boast of.
Of course, such records are down to team defences more than individual goalkeeping efforts, but then, wouldn’t one agree that the Manchester United defence, of significantly higher financial worth, is better than West Brom’s?
In any case, neither club nor individual will want to look back on the decision to sell Foster, but with their former youth 'keeper at just 29 years of age, Manchester United may not have had to splurge £20 million on a youthful Spaniard had they kept Foster around for another season or two.