I am not really sure people understand what's the point of striker on the pitch if they thought that was a good performance? It seems to me that people were so convinced we need a striker who can press that they forgot that striker is supposed to do many other things that are far more important to begin with.
We were awful in transition, we couldn't keep the ball to save our lives, and if we had no Rashford we wouldn't probably see their keeper entire game.
He wasn't even winning headers, he is no threat to their goal or defenders whatsoever, and the only thing he did well was running without the ball(even though I am not sure how effective it is considering how fecking slow he is). He also can keep the ball when he has defender on his back around the half way line but he does it so slow that we can't even build up the play quickly even if he keeps the ball in those situations, and his passing after keeping those balls is generally very average.
I am not blaming him for the sake of it, just finding it ridiculous that people think that was good performance from a Manchester United striker. It was a good performance from a 3m striker though, but we wouldn't do worse if we played Mctominay there then either. Or Bruno. Or anyone else that would at least bring something else like Rashford and played Garnacho on the left.