10
Yes but I think you've got the reason we want him up front wrong. It's not that the wing is seen as an inferior position. Nobody in English football was calling for Giggs or Bale to be played up front. We loved Rondo as a winger, many think he had his best seasons there. Nobody is asking for Hazard to play up top either.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
For you maybe, but there is a definite stigma there. You often hear "wasted out wide" but rarely "wasted up front".
England has a long history of wingers being league player of the year. Three out of the last ten have been.
Eh? Where have I said he's "stuck out wide"? I'm happy enough with him playing wide if we have a better striker albeit its quite blatantly obvious he's more effective when he's starting as a striker.
It is true. Rashford himself, regardless of whatever position he has been listed on the team sheet, has wasted a large percentage of his opportunities this season, much larger than he did last season. Which is fine of course, but it is what happened.
No it isn't. You may want to keep repeating it but it isn't actually true. Not that Rashford hasn't missed chances or Mbappe doesn't have a better conversion rate this season but its definitely not been a case of Rashford missing a score of chances as you seem to be implying.
I'm not talking about a classical winger. It's when a forward player who has a well rounded game is played in a wide position it is seen by many as a waste of his talent. If the player can play the role intelligently then it gives flexibility to play wide and be the second striker.
Here.
That third goal is unreal
He was sprinting around fine, think it was just a little cramp that he managed to run off.
I expect Jose to play a duo up front like he did in both recent games against Chelsea and Rashford is certainly (and deservedly) going to be one of them.He was causing them problems that little time he spent on the pitch, warmup for Citeh on Thursday!
Martial and Rashers in attacking due!
Make it happen Jose!
Agreed, and that's probably what I'd do. The sexiest option (Rashford-Martial) isn't always the right one. Even if his attitude is good and he works hard, Martial is never going to cover anywhere near as much ground as Lingard does, both in terms of pressing when we're off the ball and making runs when we're on it. But he could be a match-winning sub.
Gotta agree with you. Even though I think Rashford would do great playing of Martial due to Martial,s better close control and ability to hold onto the ball, I agree Lingard will get the advantage due to his workrate.
Covert more than 1 if the chances are good enough. I also hate it when if someone manages to score, the rest of the 90 minutes becomes totally irrelevant and they suddenly played fantastically. It's like an inverse version of fickle fans that over criticize and seems really prevalent here especially with homegrown players.
Is him playing like a traditional winger due to instruction or lack of tactical intelligence? He plays there in a 4-3-3. That's a forward role, not a traditional winger/wide midfield player.
I don't think he will play 2 up front. That seemed specific for Chelsea's formation. A narrow back 4 to pick up Chelsea's front 3 and then man to man 4v4 in midfield. That just happened to leave 2 forwards.
Yeah, that's not how we played against Chelsea. Darmian played far more centrally as a 3rd CB next to Rojo and Bailly, with Young and Valencia being the wing backs. Fellaini, Pog and Herrera were in central midfield. That's a 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 formation, depending on whether you count the wing backs as defence or midfield. It was never a 4-4-2
It was a back 4 vs Chelsea. Herrera played "right back", man to man on Hazard just like Jones did at the Bridge. Darmian narrow left back man to man on Pedro just like he did at Stamford Bridge. Bailly and Rojo 2vs1 on Costa.
It's all a bit jumbled. Why would English football have a problem with Rashford playing like a traditional winger if by your own admittance English football celebrates wingers? Don't really get that but there you go.
He is 19, you don't think he can improve those attributes? How many 19 year olds have been that well-rounded?
I agree with your assessment, but his ability to lead the line and bring others into play is definitely something that can be developed in a 19 year old.
Can't believe this is a question. We will give him time to develop for 1-2 more years. At 22-23 is when he should become the main striker. That's why we are going to buy one this summer
What I meant is that he won't be starting week-in, week-out as a striker, which would be the ideal situation for his development. Not many of the top strikers around had to make do with being back up or having to play on the wings when they were 19-22
Same here, which is why i don't understand why people go overboard when he missed that 1on1. He's a young kid still learning his game and he's got a long way to go. Enjoy the ups and downs i say!
