acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,309
Salah - 6881 minutes.Can you post minutes played as well though m
Rashford - 6278 minutes.
Sterling - 6507 minutes.
Salah - 6881 minutes.Can you post minutes played as well though m
What are you even talking about? I was only trying to demonstrate that Rashford is actually a very good and unappreciated player, by our own supporters it seems like.His words aren't validation for anything. You are getting sucked into his medis BS.
Rashford is quality though, being young he has his off moments but nothing compared to Martiall. The answer to the striker problem is right in front of us; sell Martiall and Pogba and break the bank to get Erling Haaland.What are you even talking about? I was only trying to demonstrate that Rashford is actually a very good and unappreciated player, by our own supporters it seems like.
That’s the point of the comparison though isn’t it? People are pointing out that he is young and could still improve. Doesn’t mean he will but there’s plenty of reason to believe he will improve.He only turned into the absolute goalscoring machine that he was known as later in his career at about 23/24. Any comparisons before that are deliberately misleading.
Rashford is an absolute standout. His numbers alone would indicate that. I am equally puzzled some of the criticism he gets. Guardiola plays an uncharacteristically conservative game against United, especially because of Rashford. He has burned City more than once. However, Guardiola has stockpiled offensive players quite unlike Rashford. He has opted for Davil Silva clones, in Foden, Bernerdo, Gundogan, and Torres. His only player with pace, Sane, has been replaced with Torres.What are you even talking about? I was only trying to demonstrate that Rashford is actually a very good and unappreciated player, by our own supporters it seems like.
And this is why those stats that you're hand-waving away* need to be brought out. So people with agendas get called out for talking nonsense.The reason I knock Rashford and get so wound up by it is the hyperbole and the hype around a player I think is effectively no more than a solid PL footballer who is now approaching his peak years and shows little to no signs of every really kicking on and being the special player we hoped he could become when he burst onto the scene
When the stats and the eye test tell 2 different stories I know which one I'm going to trust. If he kicks on and actually reaches the level that people think he is currently at when they trot out those sort of comparisons, there will be no need to legislate for when he is being rightly criticized.Mmm. Sterling has scored 43 and assisted 20 since the start of last season. Rashford has scored 39 and assisted 24. So he kind of has, while playing for a worse team.
Salah has 47 goals and 17 assists in the same time period so directly involved in one goal more for the extra game time he’s had while also taking more penalties and also playing for a better team.
Neither player has to contend with breaking their back during that time period. Who should we compare him to? Son? It’s the same story.
There are stats and there is reality. the chasm isn't an insignificant one so much so that admitting it is there isn't unreasonable. The 2 players you mentioned have had high watermarks which Rashford will do extremely well to reach.Mmm. Sterling has scored 43 and assisted 20 since the start of last season. Rashford has scored 39 and assisted 24. So he kind of has, while playing for a worse team.
Salah has 47 goals and 17 assists in the same time period so directly involved in one goal more for the extra game time he’s had while also taking more penalties and also playing for a better team.
Neither player has to contend with breaking their back during that time period. Who should we compare him to? Son? It’s the same story.
In other words, "the reality doesn't match what I claimed, so instead of admitting it, I'll just make up my own instead"There are stats and there is reality.
The entirely subjective one? You might want to try that eye test on Sterling and Salah more often then as all round performances aren’t their speciality.When the stats and the eye test tell 2 different stories I know which one I'm going to trust. If he kicks on and actually reaches the level that people think he is currently at when they trot out those sort of comparisons, there will be no need to legislate for when he is being rightly criticized.
There are stats and there is reality. the chasm isn't an insignificant one so much so that admitting it is there isn't unreasonable. The 2 players you mentioned have had high watermarks which Rashford will do extremely well to reach.
precisely what those who cherry pick stats and making disingenuous comparisons seem to be doing then?In other words, "the reality doesn't match what I claimed, so instead of admitting it, I'll just make up my own instead"
You're comparing players who have had lulls to one who is supposedly in your view outperforming them, never mind that he ahs to hit anywhere near their peaks to even be compared to them. If you applied the eye test correctly you wouldn't need to bring in Salah and Sterling because them playing worse won't make Rashford play better anyway. Does that mean you admit that he still has quite some way to go?You might want to try that eye test on Sterling and Salah more often then. Because all round performances aren’t their speciality.
Rashford may not hit the heights they have. It would be nice to see him play in a team as good as they have the last few years before finding out though. The point still remains, there isn’t a wide player in the league producing more than Rashford has the last 18 months.
A lull? It’s over an 18 month period. Over the same 18 month period he also produced more than Son and Mane. Can he still improve? He’s 23 years old so I certainly hope so. Regardless of that, he’s already a very good player who bares comparison to the very best in his position.precisely what those who cherry pick stats and making disingenuous comparisons seem to be doing then?
You're comparing players who have had lulls to one who is supposedly in your view outperforming them, never mind that he ahs to hit anywhere near their peaks to even be compared to them. If you applied the eye test correctly you wouldn't need to bring in Salah and Sterling because them playing worse won't make Rashford play better anyway. Does that mean you admit that he still has quite some way to go?
"someone compared rashford with salah the other day when he has yet to hit even sterling level productivity"precisely what those who cherry pick stats and making disingenuous comparisons seem to be doing then?
Rashford has scored or assisted many important goals. Ronaldo was called flat track bully till 2007 season too. Rashford on the other hand has very good record vs top 6.but let’s take a look at Rashford’s 8 goals in 24 this season, if we’re analysing this stuff in detail. Four of those eight goals have come in three games against Sheffield Utd, Brighton and Newcastle - teams in the bottom 5. One of those goals came in a 9-0 victory against a horribly demoralised, 10-man Southampton team. One was almost certainly an own-goal, albeit a very important one, against Wolves. I’m fairly certain that shot was headed well wide but we won’t really know for sure because of the short trajectory from Rashford’s foot to the Wolves defender
I mean, you made a claim that was soundly refuted, and ran to hide behind "the eye test" to avoid having to admit you pulled that claim out of your ass.precisely what those who cherry pick stats and making disingenuous comparisons seem to be doing then?
someone compared rashford with salah the other day when he has yet to hit even sterling level productivity. Why is it surprising that they compare him with Best now?
When the stats and the eye test tell 2 different stories I know which one I'm going to trust.
There are stats and there is reality. the chasm isn't an insignificant one so much so that admitting it is there isn't unreasonable. The 2 players you mentioned have had high watermarks which Rashford will do extremely well to reach.
Starts with "doesn't even hit sterling level of productivity" when presented with stats for goals and assists, those are cherry picked stats and we have to go with eye test. Then what exactly did you mean by Sterling level of productivity?precisely what those who cherry pick stats and making disingenuous comparisons seem to be doing then?
if you cant compare a player yet to hit his peak with a player supposedly past it, you also can't necessarily compare those 2 players at the same age thereby implying that he will be as good/better. Especially in a world when there is a game and a context beyond just stats which prima facie obviously won't tell you everything. I get the defence against perceived criticism but the reasoning is quite a disingenuous one.It’s over an 18 month period. Over the same 18 month period he also produced more than Son and Mane. Can he still improve? He’s 23 years old so I certainly hope so. Regardless of that, he’s already a very good player who bares comparison to the very best in his position.
Slightly out of date so he’s probably slipped down a little but he’s been doing it big games too.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...-vs-the-premier-league-big-six-since-2019-20/
This is a player cut down during a great spell by a broken back for Christ’s sake.
When comparing peaks it may be fair to wait until Rashford hits his. If we want to compare at the same age we can. I have a feeling Rashford wins that too.
Unless you have trouble reading/ comprehending or have room temperature IQ, you know exactly what I and a few others meant. it is as dumb as doing a like for like comparison where if anything that should mean he is judged even more harshly. You wouldn't want that now would you? ^"someone compared rashford with salah the other day when he has yet to hit even sterling level productivity"
*sees stats showing Rashford hitting Sterling and Salah levels of productivity*
"no, not that kind of productivity. i meant my eye test"
You are exactly the kind of clown I've been ranting about this entire thread.
I mean, you made a claim that was soundly refuted, and ran to hide behind "the eye test" to avoid having to admit you pulled that claim out of your ass.
I must have missed when he matched Sterling at his best or was on track to win POTY. You do realize City want to upgrade both Sterling and Jesus?Starts with "doesn't even hit sterling level of productivity" when presented with stats for goals and assists, those are cherry picked stats and we have to go with eye test. Then what exactly did you mean by Sterling level of productivity?
City don't want to upgrade on Sterling. So Rashford isn't as good as Peak Sterling season. As usual goal posts are moved.I must have missed when he matched Sterling at his best or was on track to win POTY. You do realize City want to upgrade both Sterling and Jesus?
It isn't. the point is still the same one for those who don't want to admit that he could be doing better/more. what was the point of making those comparisons in the first place?City don't want to upgrade on Sterling. So Rashford isn't as good as Peak Sterling season. As usual goal posts are moved.
Well I'm sure almost every ManUtd fan would agree that Rashford can so better than he did, that doesn't mean he is doing poorly.It isn't. the point is still the same one for those who don't want to admit that he could be doing better/more. what was the point of making those comparisons in the first place?
i wasn't referring to only this 18 month window obviously. I made that post because someone wanted to know whether Best was matching Rashford for productivity. Something to that effect.I don't know who and why they made comparison. All I saw was you made a mocking post saying how he can't produce same numbers as Salah and Sterling when he had matched them in last 18 months.
Even Salah won't match his peak numbers and Sterling won't match his either. Mane won't match Sterling and Salah peak numbers too. Those peak numbers have 0 relevance to what's happening this season or how good they are now.i wasn't referring to only this 18 month window obviously. I made that post because someone wanted to know whether Best was matching Rashford for productivity. Something to that effect.
I’ve no idea what point you’re trying to make here. You weren’t happy with comparing the here and now so what else could we compare? A past that heavily benefits more mature players? Players playing in considerably better teams at that.if you cant compare a player yet to hit his peak with a player supposedly past it, you also can't necessarily compare those 2 players at the same age thereby implying that he will be as good/better. Especially in a world when there is a game and a context beyond just stats which prima facie obviously won't tell you everything. I get the defence against perceived criticism but the reasoning is quite a disingenuous one.
Unless you have trouble reading/ comprehending or have room temperature IQ, you know exactly what I and a few others meant. it is as dumb as doing a like for like comparison where if anything that should mean he is judged even more harshly. You wouldn't want that now would you? ^
They’re just having an 18 month lull.All I saw was you made a mocking post saying how he can't produce same numbers as Salah and Sterling when he had matched them in last 18 months.
Yeah that's what I don't get. If we are comparing spell of 10-15 games, then we can say it's a purple patch. From the start of last season, he is matching their numbers but somehow he shouldn't be compared to them because we are not as good as Liverpool or City.They’re just having an 18 month lull.
Players who have hit a peak are persisted with because of that and the proof of what they can do though. What is there to dispute about that? When you have scored 40 goals in a season - even if you missed as many - it buys you a lot of leeway. Especially when your performances in general haven't fallen off a cliff.Even Salah won't match his peak numbers and Sterling won't match his either. Mane won't match Sterling and Salah peak numbers too. Those peak numbers have 0 relevance to what's happening this season or how good they are now.
It is not a question of being 'happy' with comparing the present productivity of the respective players but what the implication is when you do so, which is just a lot of obfuscation.I’ve no idea what point you’re trying to make here. You weren’t happy with comparing the here and now so what else could we compare? A past that heavily benefits more mature players? Players playing in considerably better teams at that.
You’re right, there is a context behind stats but all you have is your heavily subjective eye test. Do you seriously watch Sterling and Salah? If people think Rashford is a bad finisher they should watch Sterling and see how bad it can get and still be considered a top player.
How many times did he score 40 goals in a season? And how is it relevant to how good or bad they are this season?Players who have hit a peak are persisted with because of that and the proof of what they can do though. What is there to dispute about that? When you have scored 40 goals in a season - even if you missed as many - it buys you a lot of leeway. Especially when your performances in general haven't fallen off a cliff.
So it's Sterling at his best now? Okay, let's look at Sterling's two best seasons for City (in terms of productivity), 17-18 and 18-19. 48 goals and 35 assists in 97 games (7665 minutes of football.) Marcus Rashford's 19-20 and 20-21 seasons (so far) has him at 39 goals and 23 assists in 82 games (6277 minutes of football.)I must have missed when he matched Sterling at his best or was on track to win POTY. You do realize City want to upgrade both Sterling and Jesus?
performances don't quite happen in a vacuum, so I would say quite relevant.How many times did he score 40 goals in a season? And how is it relevant to how good or bad they are this season?
It's getting pretty tedious when the major bone you have to pick is semantics, especially when it should be quite obvious exactly what I meant. My bad I guess.So it's Sterling at his best now? Okay, let's look at Sterling's two best seasons for City (in terms of productivity), 17-18 and 18-19. 48 goals and 35 assists in 97 games (7665 minutes of football.) Marcus Rashford's 19-20 and 20-21 seasons (so far) has him at 39 goals and 23 assists in 82 games (6277 minutes of football.)
That's 0.49 goals and 0.36 assists per game for Sterling, a goal or assist every 92 minutes. Rashford has 0.47 goals and 0.28 assists per game, a goal or assist every 101 minutes. That's pretty damn close. Close enough to say he's matched Sterling at his best (in terms of productivity)? Probably not, but Sterling had the benefit of playing in one of the best teams the league has ever seen while putting up his numbers.
But then again, you didn't actually say "Sterling at his best", you just said Sterling.
What a nothing post.performances don't quite happen in a vacuum, so I would say quite relevant.
That is a testament to the post you made where it seems as though even the bleeding obvious is lost on you and has to be pointed out.What a nothing post.
I did you a solid and compared current Rashford to the Greatest of Sterling, and all you do is moan? You're the one who claimed Rashford hadn't matched Sterling. Sterling is still very much a player in his peak, despite his recent slump. As such, it's only natural that people compare their recent numbers.It's getting pretty tedious when the major bone you have to pick is semantics, especially when it should be quite obvious exactly what I meant. My bad I guess.
As far as playing in better teams is concerned it can go both ways, you won't necessarily produce better stats just because you're a cog in a better team.
Its cute to watch the mental gymnastics.That is a testament to the post you made where it seems as though even the bleeding obvious is lost on you and has to be pointed out.
You are the one making a complete show of yourself, child. Not the right thread to be talking about other people's reading comprehension and IQUnless you have trouble reading/ comprehending or have room temperature IQ, you know exactly what I and a few others meant
there is no moaning there other than what you want to see, those stats do show that Sterling has produced more than Rashford in a better team no less. And you omitted the previous season too where he scored 30 goals.I did you a solid and compared current Rashford to the Greatest of Sterling, and all you do is moan? You're the one who claimed Rashford hadn't matched Sterling. Sterling is still very much a player in his peak, despite his recent slump. As such, it's only natural that people compare their recent numbers.
As for the bolded, that excuse doesn't really fly with Sterling. He served as one of City's main attacking outlets and benefited greatly from their tactics.
That's not what happened though, people want to make half-assed comparisons while projecting and making straw man arguments probably just to avoid admitting that rashford could be playing much better.Its cute to watch the mental gymnastics.
Rollingstoned1:. Rashford can't even match Sterling productivity, forget Salah
Others:. Here are the numbers for last 18 month, Rashford has done as well if not better than both
Rollingstoned1. Well I meant eye test even though I made a BS claim and talked about productivity
Others: Well he has consistently matched 2 of the best wide players in 18 months, so not a purple patch
Rollingstoned1: Yeah what about their peaks, did he match their peak numbers. What about decision making, giving away the ball and all that.
It's hilarious watching all the twists and turns, moving goal posts and mental gymnastics.
FYI, Rashford's dribbling success rate is better than Sterling and Salah, he also loses possession less via unsuccessful touches and dispossessed than Salah and Sterling. There you go, one more failed eye test.
People make bs comparisons and the ones calling it out are the fools.You are the one making a complete show of yourself, child. Not the right thread to be talking about other people's reading comprehension and IQ
Go ahead and quote them, people who think he can't do any better this season and he is playing to the best of his abilities or he is playing near perfect game (except that Gold trafford guy).That's not what happened though, people want to make half-assed comparisons while projecting and making straw man arguments probably just to avoid admitting that rashford could be playing much better.
Ftr most of the criticism of him comes from people saying they think he could be doing more, it has naff all to do with what Salah/Sterling.