We just don’t know though do we. I personally do think that would be enough. You make it out like Greenwood doesn’t have an all round game. While he’s nowhere close as explosive he’s currently a more potent finisher than a young Rooney and technically is very very good. If he can add some additional authority to his game (which should come with age) and start to really bang in the goals the contest will be much closer than you make out. Ultimately we don’t know and law of averages says it will be a hard career to match but writing off a talent like Greenwood achieving it seems crazy to me.
Has the cult of Rashford become more important than the player?
- Thread starter Nikelesh Reddy
- Start date
If there is one player in ManUtd squad who can, it's Greenwood. He has very good allround game, not as good as Rooney's but he is still developing. There is already clear difference in his game from last season.
It's a very high bar but Greenwood has the technical attributes and talent to reach that level. Need lot of things to fall in place to do that though.
I think that the point made by others is that it's unlikely that he becomes better than Rooney because when all is said and done, Rooney is probably a top 10 all time player for United or very close. Rooney is closer to an ultimate goal than a standard.
I agree but considering Mason is the gold standard of academy talents I don’t see why he would be written off as if it’s impossible. If anything he should be aiming for those kind of goals as that’s what the best players do.
Outside of a few ludicrous opinions I do find it interesting that relatively young football fans or sports fans in general tend to have unrealistic expectations. In football you routinely see young players like Mbappé or Haaland being unfavorably judged based on Messi and Ronaldo prowesses, it's as if people don't realize that these players are all time greats and that we are lucky to have seen them during their primes and even more lucky to have seen two of them play their best football at the same time. To a lesser extent this applies to Rooney, Sir Bobby Charlton, Best or Law at United these players were exceptional footballers, among great players they were special, you can't and shouldn't expect that type of level from a young player, it's typically the kind of thing that you simply witness and with the power of hindsight determine that they are as great as they are.
There are hundreds of gold standard of academy talents, it means very little because he isn't playing against academy players anymore and players develop at their own pace. It's not impossible that he reaches Rooney's level but it's unlikely particularly when Rooney was a more precocious talent anyway. The level that Rooney reached is rare in football. The odds are against every single young player that will follow him, the same way every single player that has followed Sir Bobby Charlton had little chance to match his level.
But do we not expect the standard from the team if not the individual? If we are happy for Rashford to develop in our team then is it reasonable to be critical of the teams overall progress or lack of it while he is learning?
If you put a player into an integral position at 18 and have him play 300 games or so up to 23 and still say we shouldn't have unrealistic expectation of the player as he is still young then aren't we effectively explaining our relative lack of success in that time frame? This is a general point as opposed to just being focussed on Rashford. It was often said even with the Class of 92 that we struggled to bring through top class strikers because at a club like United we simply didn't have time to wait for the player to develop as we had to be winning all the time and therefore our standards DID have to be incredibly high?
Yes the lack of WC attacking players in their prime has been a huge problem and we've put way too much responsability on young players like Rashford
I'm not sure if I understand your question but Rashford has played at a high level and been at a level close to the best attackers in the league, so if you want to explain our relative lack of success you will have to find it somewhere else. The easy place to look is the overall strength of the team outside of Rashford. First the team lost the best manager in the world and arguably the best manager ever, secondly it's clear that United has lacked quality in multiple areas compared to for example our last CL finalist team, we haven't had the same depth in midfield and attack. None of the issues that the club has were caused by Rashford playing 300 games, if anything Rashford being able to play at a relatively high level from day one is a blessing, we basically benefitted from a Nani level player without having to purchase him or developing him into prime Nani, he magically appeared that way.
If you want to complain about something it will be about not having a prime Scholes, Carrick, Keane, Rooney, Tevez, RVP, Ferdinand, Vidic or Giggs. I won't even mention not having Ronaldo because that one is quite obvious and I won't add the rotation players who were almost all better than what we currently have.
The player in discussion is producing the numbers, so we are pointing fingers at wrong players. When we have good players who are contributing and not winning, we shouldn't be criticising the best players. What we have to do is improve the weak areas and buy upgrade on weaker players. In our case it's CM and CB, also RW.
Same happened to Pogba when he was our best player and he got criticism for not winning when we had too many average players. Tbh that's been the case since SAF retired and even before that when Rooney used to get unfair criticism saying we will never win the league with him as main man ignoring all the context.
So after talking about playing through injury throughout this season Rashford insists to go to EURO, and with the World Cup next year that would be 3 summers without proper rest for him. Say if he talks about "playing for through injury" again, is it ok for the Manchester United fan to feel upset toward him? or are we just going to blame the manager or the club who pay his salary?
I would just close this awful thread with the following conclusion:
Rashford is a very good, productive footballer, who will unlikely reach Rooney's level anytime in his career, but we are talking about one of the prem greatest ever so that's no disservice to Rashford at all.
Mods, thank me later
Rashford is a very good, productive footballer, who will unlikely reach Rooney's level anytime in his career, but we are talking about one of the prem greatest ever so that's no disservice to Rashford at all.
Mods, thank me later
Aye perfect reasonable opinion which I think most of the level headed fans agree with. Then there are clowns who come out with nonsense like "nobody in top7 of major leagues would be falling over to sign him" or just blatantly lying in bad faith that he has just scored one goal since January is something which ruins this thread.
As an aside, I've started to notice that Rooney has started getting underrated. He was a generational talent!
You can look in other areas too if you wish to, Im not precluding that either. What Im saying is on the one had if of the individual i.e in this case Rashford, we are saying that he needs more time to develop and reach his potential as he isnt there yet, but if you want a winning team on the pitch then can we afford to wait for players to get better in this way? In our prime would we put a forward in for 300 games and still be saying this? Would the clubs who are winning the top pries do this? Maybe people are being too harsh on Rashford but is that not the nature of being a forward for a club that wins things or one that aspires to. Its elite level numbers required because frankly it should be an elite level?
No one is waiting on Rashford to be a winning team. Where is that idea coming from?
Because we've had lots of players in our title winning teams that were nowhere near as good as Rooney. People compare him to Rooney to try and put him down. Rooney is above so many of the top wingers at other title winning teams in the prem. Not matching Rooney doesn't make him not worthy of playing for United or being in our starting line up.
I can’t see him getting close (from what I’ve witnessed so far). My memory of young Rooney is just so different from what I’ve seen of Greenwood, talented though he is. I think back to the hat trick he scored against Fenerbahce when he was 18 I think? He looked like a man playing against boys. Totally dominant. Those are the kind of games that make me wonder if he ever became quite as good as he promised to be, despite his Hall of Fame career.
When talking about the likes of Rooney and others you said about Rashford "you can't and shouldn't expect that type of level from a young player". What Im saying is if we want to be back at the level we were at when we had Rooney, Law, Charlton (those were the ones you mentioned I think) in winning teams do we not HAVE to expect that level from a young player or if not, then play someone else? Surely if you wish to compete at the very top you need these exceptional talents in place rather than giving a player 300 games and saying its still unreasonable to expect that level from him? That might be harsh but are we not illustrating part of the problem? We seem to want to demand higher standards from the team as a whole but in this instance when discussing the individual its ok to say we need to wait and not be unreasonable.
Of course it doesn't, but I don't think he will. I don't see it, Rooney's mentality really set him apart. Greenwood doesn't seem to have that same hunger.
Or maybe you add talent? Because Rashford is currently one of the best attackers in the league and one of the most productive, so your point makes no sense, it's as if there isn't 10 other players on the field with the majority being lesser players than Rashford and being nowhere near United's past starting players. Just to make it clear, Rashford is no worse than prime Nani, the issue is that we don't have prime Scholes, Carrick, Rooney, RVP, Ferdinand, Vidic, we don't even have prime Van Der Sar.
Yeh I don’t disagree. I think it’s hard to compeRe because he’s a completely different player to Rooney, he’s nowhere near as explosive for example. I think he’s very technically good though and has potential to be an even more lethal finisher. If he ever adjusts to the striker position physically then he could be a 30 goal a season striker, that will give him some serious status.
Yeah, Rooney was a great player, had great career but still there is always that feel that he could have been better. One of the best ever PL player, so that's a high bar for any young player.
Absolutely. He was also a beast in the Euros that year but got injured unfortunately at the business end. Then he never really had a great tournament for England after that. He was so fearless back then, but somewhere along the line that was lost. Maybe it was the pressure heaped upon him by the country and the press to be the ‘messiah’ figure. Given that kind of scrutiny, he actually held up pretty well and has a stacked trophy cabinet to show for his efforts.
I rate Rashford arguably the 2nd best English player right now after Kane. He has speed, skills, and his finishing needs a bit of work. The only thing he is missing is decision making and that is on him and the coaches. If he was playing for any team in the world we would be desperate to sign him. Most of the time when he is not in the team we look horrible. He had a bad final but everyone else didn't play well. I wouldn't trade Rashford for anyone.
This is all there is to it. A lot of the people in these threads either aren't aware of how Rashford's performances stack up to the best players in his position in the league, or just outright ignore the evidence because they don't like the guy.
Is he a world class player? No, not yet anyway. Is he one of our best players right now? Yes, clearly. So the comparisons to Rooney and co are completely irrelevant - if we get to the point where United are competing at the very top again and Rashford is a nailed-on starter while not performing to the level of the rest of the attack, we can start banging on about how we've given him 300 games and he's still not a world-beater.
Side note: back in 2017 when Rashford was a raw 20-year-old with actually awful decision-making and not nearly the same skill, general awareness or end product that he has now, he used to frustrate the hell out of me too. Specifically when Mourinho's team the previous season (and Van Gaal's before that) couldn't buy a goal and yet pundits like Jamie Redknapp moaned about signing the likes of Zlatan and Lukaku because "Rashford needs to play!"
Anyone who's watched him regularly since he came through will have seen how much better he is now, and I'm still confident he's got another couple of gears to go. Should be a 20-league-goals-a-season forward, like Mane (whom he's just outperformed over the season, incidentally)
Anyone who's watched him regularly since he came through will have seen how much better he is now, and I'm still confident he's got another couple of gears to go. Should be a 20-league-goals-a-season forward, like Mane (whom he's just outperformed over the season, incidentally)
Would you take him starting every game for Bayern though?
Nobody is saying we should sell him, I just don’t think he’s at the level we need to be starting every week if our ambition is to win the Premier League & Champions League.
Genuinely interested to see a Bayern fan's take on this.
Are the likes of Gnabry and Coman so far ahead of Rashford that he wouldn't get in the team ahead of them? Never seen it myself. Big fan of Sane but he's hardly the most consistent player around either.
Quality control
Sir, I don't know how you watch the game or if you have ever played at any level because your understanding of the game and roles is too literal.
Hope this can help:-
Pep's Man City has just won the league and had the highest number of goals yet Pep barely played with strikers. So whose role was it to put up these numbers? How could they have knocked out a PSG team that had a minimum of 3 forwards on the pitch yet they did not have any 'forward' to score goals?
It is a SCAM whichever way you scrutinise it - if he is truly under physical limitations as he recently spoke, then his selfishness to avail himself as a 'cripple' in competitive games is a quintuple scam - to his coach, medical staff, to the fans, to the team, and to the fellow players. Utd and England have more than enough players to cover him. There is a time for him to rest, yet the SCAM continues with no medical backup but rather PR.
This 'injury' has also evolved from a back injury excuse that takes long to heal, when he came back for the COVID games and was performing poorly to now being a foot related injury once he started missing chances and making multiple immature decisions.
Matter of fact it is a sextuple scam because the cult of Rashford is scammed to exaggerate his stats on the premise of this 'injury'.
That might actually be the best post in the entire topic
What an utter clown.
What an utter clown.
I understand the game well enough, if only you can understand that there are players who play different roles on the pitch.
Who even said only attackers score goals? What a pointless post, City played without strikers so yeah attackers are useless unless they do midfield work. Great logic.
Do you think Grealish, Maddison play same role as Rashford, Mane, Salah? Well don't answer. The deleted part says all I need to know, what a shit post, must be the dumbest one in this thread. SCAM and all that nonsense.
They really let just about anyone be a newbie and post these days 
Childish thread from a spoiled fan.
We have been relying too heavily on Rashford since Ole arrived, similar to how we rely too heavily on Bruno, and in some games they've looked completely burnt out.
But when you don't have adequate replacements on the bench to rotate with, then your first XI stars suffer burn out.
We have been relying too heavily on Rashford since Ole arrived, similar to how we rely too heavily on Bruno, and in some games they've looked completely burnt out.
But when you don't have adequate replacements on the bench to rotate with, then your first XI stars suffer burn out.
Well you are getting there, hope this helps:
The technical profile dictates the role and not the other way round. Grealish and Maddison can play anywhere in the attacking third because they are qualified by their profile. The Salah and Mane you give as examples I watch them even in AFCON, and they both play as out and out strikers in their national teams - not wingers but out and out central strikers - because their technical profile can play anywhere in the attacking third.
What role they play for Liverpool?
Maddison and Grealish can play anywhere in the attacking third? Maybe in the world where injury is a SCAM.
Rashford, Salah, Mane don't play as wingers, they are wide forwards. Hope this helps, (I doubt it anyways). Maybe they lack "technical profile".
Also players strengths and weakness dictates their position and role. That's why Messi isn't a CB and why Van Dijk isn't attacker. Well done for stating the obvious.
I have read this twice and I can't make sense of it.
It still feels like “if I play bad it means I’m injured”.
The thing is we’re told his performances are down to injury but also anyone who thinks there’s anything wrong with his performances is a clown.
Ok
The thing is we’re told his performances are down to injury but also anyone who thinks there’s anything wrong with his performances is a clown.
Ok
You should read along with quoted post and the one I deleted from his original post.
Even after that if you don't understand then don't bother, just move on.
Do you think he is good enough for top 7 teams in other leagues?