Marcus Rashford | 2026/27 Performances

MyOnlySolskjaer

Creator of Player Performance threads
Joined
Nov 27, 2014
Messages
29,436
Location
Player Performance Threads
0_JS409890592.jpg


Full Name: Marcus Rashford
Date of Birth: Oct 31, 1997
Nationality: England
189.png

Height: 185cm
Position: Forward - Left Winger
Foot: Right
Player Agent: Relatives
Squad Number: #14
Joined: Jan 1, 2016
Contract until: Jun 30, 2028
Outfitter: Nike​
 
Last edited:
If teams leave 70 yards of space in behind and can't be fecked, he'll be a star.
 
MyOnlySolskjaer said:
Yeah Carrick loves him, played along side him when he broke into the team. He's absolutely getting another chance.
Click to expand...
That's the impression I'm getting from the media briefings too, surely it'll have a detrimental impact on squad morale.

What shirt number do you think he'll get?
 
Why was he taken off by Tuchel at halftime after a very good first half? Especially to play Watkins on left wing?

If it wasn't for injury then another idiotic decision by Tuchel.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Teams can be fecked, but still can’t leave space.
He and Saka would’ve punished Argentina in the last 25 minutes.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure to be honest, felt they made a meal of the Saka goal. As soon as the intensity has picked up, we look poor again.
 
Lash said:
I'm not so sure to be honest, felt they made a meal of the Saka goal. As soon as the intensity has picked up, we look poor again.
Click to expand...

Toney off, finally another attacking player on and we should score almost immediately with Jude and now have a pen.

The lesson to learn is that we must always have lots of attacking outlets else we get steamrolled.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Toney off, finally another attacking player on and we should score almost immediately with Jude and now have a pen.

The lesson to learn is that we must always have lots of attacking outlets else we get steamrolled.
Click to expand...

I couldn’t agree with you any more. This game has emphasised how much you need those outlets. Toney being on the pitch that long - my goodness.
 
Wumminator said:
I couldn’t agree with you any more. This game has emphasised how much you need those outlets. Toney being on the pitch that long - my goodness.
Click to expand...

We got away with Toney when we had Rashford and Saka on the wings, but feck me when we gave that up we got absolutely battered.
It was almost instantaneous once he took Toney off for Bellingham that we started looking a football team again and suddenly France didn’t have complete domination.

I’m absolutely convinced that in the 25 minutes where Argentina failed to score, Saka and Rashford would’ve punished them for pushing so high up.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
We got away with Toney when we had Rashford and Saka on the wings, but feck me when we gave that up we got absolutely battered.
It was almost instantaneous once he took Toney off for Bellingham that we started looking a football team again and suddenly France didn’t have complete domination.

I’m absolutely convinced that in the 25 minutes where Argentina failed to score, Saka and Rashford would’ve punished them for pushing so high up.
Click to expand...

I’m absolutely the same. Didn’t have to be them - someone of their profile.
 
Generally a decent tournament. Some good moments and some quiet and mixed ones. He’s a very good player under the right circumstances.

It’s a shame it didn’t work out here. I can’t see a way back. I’m pretty surprised no team has come in for him but some are willing to pay such a huge amount of money for players such as Gordon and Rodgers. Even accounting for his wages, there’s a good deal to be had there.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
Toney off, finally another attacking player on and we should score almost immediately with Jude and now have a pen.

The lesson to learn is that we must always have lots of attacking outlets else we get steamrolled.
Click to expand...
Bellingham tried to do what he did against Argentina, got the ball nicked off him on the wing and it led to the goal.

Olise on his own missed an absolute hatful of chances, lesson to learn is we need to be able to control games with possession. We nearly gave up a 4 goal lead. Having someone to stretch the pitch is obviously good, but if you can't control the game or deal with intensity, it's moot.
 
Transition heavy football under Carrick, Bruno and Tielemans as incisive passers. Things may just be working out for him. Good performance today btw, Tuchel must hate anything to do with Utd because all of England's momentum when Rashford came off for Watkins. Especially when the semi retired Toney played 80mins.
 
Lash said:
Bellingham tried to do what he did against Argentina, got the ball nicked off him on the wing and it led to the goal.

Olise on his own missed an absolute hatful of chances, lesson to learn is we need to be able to control games with possession. We nearly gave up a 4 goal lead. Having someone to stretch the pitch is obviously good, but if you can't control the game or deal with intensity, it's moot.
Click to expand...

There’s nothing moot about it, many teams have won the CL without controlling games. What we needed against Argentina, and in the second half tonight was more threat going forwards for France to worry about.
Once we took the lump off I’m pretty sure both sides had as many big chances as each other.
 
Frank Grimes said:
has been good for utd for a lot of his time but he has been gone 18 months and we haven't missed him. another loan deal is best thing.
Click to expand...
Not if a loan means that we can't afford to bring another attacker in. We will be far too short.

Sale or reintegration
 
If he wants to stay in the England set up he'll have to leave.

Playing for United won't get you in Tommy T's good books. Didn't he literally tell Liam Delap to not sign for us?!
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
There’s nothing moot about it, many teams have won the CL without controlling games. What we needed against Argentina, and in the second half tonight was more threat going forwards for France to worry about.
Once we took the lump off I’m pretty sure both sides had as many big chances as each other.
Click to expand...
And far more teams have lost it because they can't control the game. That doesn't stop teams creating a barrage of chances against you. You have to hope they don't score them and counter.
I don't think that's true and our biggest chance was created by Jed Spence who'd been on the whole time.
 
Lash said:
And far more teams have lost it because they can't control the game. That doesn't stop teams creating a barrage of chances against you. You have to hope they don't score them and counter.
I don't think that's true and our biggest chance was created by Jed Spence who'd been on the whole time.
Click to expand...

You don’t think we improved massively after Toney went off?

You don’t think there was a massive drop off in our quality between Rashford going off and Bellingham coming on?

Come on man.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
You don’t think we improved massively after Toney went off?

You don’t think there was a massive drop off in our quality between Rashford going off and Bellingham coming on?

Come on man.
Click to expand...
I don't think we improved massively. Bellingham is our best player, so I'm not surprised he had an impact, but we could have easily have lost that game with him on the pitch.

I think that had far more to do with France turning up, bringing on Dembele, Barcola, Upamecano and even Digne to a degree. Not just because Rashford went off.
 
Lash said:
Bellingham tried to do what he did against Argentina, got the ball nicked off him on the wing and it led to the goal.

Olise on his own missed an absolute hatful of chances, lesson to learn is we need to be able to control games with possession. We nearly gave up a 4 goal lead. Having someone to stretch the pitch is obviously good, but if you can't control the game or deal with intensity, it's moot.
Click to expand...

Regulus Arcturus Black said:
There’s nothing moot about it, many teams have won the CL without controlling games. What we needed against Argentina, and in the second half tonight was more threat going forwards for France to worry about.
Once we took the lump off I’m pretty sure both sides had as many big chances as each other.
Click to expand...
I think you're both right.

Regulus in that we needed Saka and Rashford on for multiple reasons. The freshness, the ability to carry the ball on the counter, more goal threats, helping push Argentina back as they may not have wanted to push too far forwards leaving so much space for them behind. Bellingham loses the ball but he was surrounded with no support. Rashford and Saka would've been joining him on that counter.

Lash in that once we get the ball, we have someone at the centre of our play who adds composure so that, if we don't get the attack off, we still at least keep possession and buy ourselves a breather.

Rashford, Saka and Mainoo all help in that regard. Maybe one of Garner/Scott/Wharton could've, too.
 
Yagami said:
I think you're both right.

Regulus in that we needed Saka and Rashford on for multiple reasons. The freshness, the ability to carry the ball on the counter, more goal threats, helping push Argentina back as they may not have wanted to push too far forwards leaving so much space for them behind. Bellingham loses the ball but he was surrounded with no support. Rashford and Saka would've been joining him on that counter.

Lash in that once we get the ball, we have someone at the centre of our play who adds composure so that, if we don't get the attack off, we still at least keep possession and buy ourselves a breather.

Rashford, Saka and Mainoo all help in that regard. Maybe one of Garner/Scott/Wharton could've, too.
Click to expand...

No doubt I’d have brought on Mainoo also, a calm head that could dribble out of danger and calmly find Saka/Rashford to move us up the pitch and give Argentina something to really worry about with their all or nothing tactics.
 
Yagami said:
I think you're both right.

Regulus in that we needed Saka and Rashford on for multiple reasons. The freshness, the ability to carry the ball on the counter, more goal threats, helping push Argentina back as they may not have wanted to push too far forwards leaving so much space for them behind. Bellingham loses the ball but he was surrounded with no support. Rashford and Saka would've been joining him on that counter.

Lash in that once we get the ball, we have someone at the centre of our play who adds composure so that, if we don't get the attack off, we still at least keep possession and buy ourselves a breather.

Rashford, Saka and Mainoo all help in that regard. Maybe one of Garner/Scott/Wharton could've, too.
Click to expand...
I also think the intensity of the defending of the Argentinians was a different level to the defending we saw tonight, and I don't think either of them have dealt well with that and especially not Rashford.
 
Lash said:
I also think the intensity of the defending of the Argentinians was a different level to the defending we saw tonight, and I don't think either of them have dealt well with that and especially not Rashford.
Click to expand...
To be fair, we didn't test the Argentina defence much. We played cowardly stuff.

What we know is that, before us, Argentina's defence was very shaky and the players who gave them problems weren't as good as ours. Rashford had a rough tournament but can still be a threat, and Saka in the previous game was toying with Norway who I think are very good.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:
No doubt I’d have brought on Mainoo also, a calm head that could dribble out of danger and calmly find Saka/Rashford to move us up the pitch and give Argentina something to really worry about with their all or nothing tactics.
Click to expand...
Yep. I think we all knew Rashford and Mainoo weren't getting much, if any, time in that game, but to not bring on Saka after his performance against Norway was quite incredible.
 
Lash said:
I also think the intensity of the defending of the Argentinians was a different level to the defending we saw tonight, and I don't think either of them have dealt well with that and especially not Rashford.
Click to expand...

The intensity? We gave them absolute nothing to defend, that was the problem.
We went to 5 at the back and took off our only threatening looking forward (Gordon) for a centre back.
Kane was utterly spent.

And pretending Rashford wouldn’t have dealt well with a line as high as that is ridiculous stuff. His record in big games is actually the strongest part of his CV and games where a team pushes that high are perfect for him.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
The intensity? We gave them absolute nothing to defend, that was the problem.
We went to 5 at the back and took off our only threatening looking forward (Gordon) for a centre back.
Kane was utterly spent.

And pretending Rashford wouldn’t have dealt well with a line as high as that is ridiculous stuff. His record in big games is actually the strongest part of his CV and games where a team pushes that high are perfect for him.
Click to expand...
Yes, when we did break, they swarmed players and turned the ball back over, or we thumped it aimlessly long.



Wingers were tracking back as well, doubling up. The only joy we got was winning it high, something Rashford wouldn't do and others weren't able to do again.
You won't hear any arguments from me about hooking Kane.

Provided you can find him and defend, which we couldn't. If the plan was to defend, win the ball back and break quick with Rashford, there's a lot that needs to happen before Rashford gets involved and we weren't doing any of it well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.