Rashford and Martial are a problem

NinjaFletch

Full Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
19,818
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
He might be 'factually and objectively wrong' but for Rashford to be within 20 goal contributions of our all time record goal scorer and one of the best players of all time with such a large sample size is remarkably, remarkably good.

In fact, I'm more convinced than ever that he's one last step away from being a truly world class player. He's frustrating as feck at the minute, but the talent is obvious.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,253
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? :p
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.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
Brilliant post, worthy of a post that gives the promotion to Full member.

You have done awesome job bringing all the stats, yes the initial point that he contributed more than Ronaldo and Rooney might be wrong but his record looks so brilliant when you out it next to Ronaldo and Rooney, 2 of our best players in last 20 years.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
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.
So Rashford's goals+ assists are similar to Ronaldo and Rooney in their first 250 games or when they were 23, his record is almost more or less same as Sterling and Salah who are at top of their games and also plays for much better team.

That's brilliant.
 

Plant0x84

Shame we’re aren’t more like Brighton
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
12,555
Location
Carpark and snack area adjacent to the abyss
I don’t get the hate for Marcus, he’s literally one of our 2 best players. He has the second highest goals scored, the second highest assists and the highest meaningful conversion rate. If you take him out of the team, we’re minus 36 goals, not second in the league and probably out of the cup.
I get that maybe Marcus would be better on occasion to pass a ball rather than running into a dead end, but quite often when he does that there isn’t anyone open to pass to.
Anthony is clearly a confidence player, and like when Zlatan joined I think signing Cavani has knocked his confidence. Not much of a defence I know, and I think he needs to realise that up top might not be his best position, and then he’s juking it out with Marcus for the left side spot. But to suggest we need to sell either of them or that they are not good enough is just plain wrong.
 

diarm

Full Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
16,681
Outstanding post @AgentSmith - I think those numbers and the way Rashford is viewed by some fans, just show the relative strength of the team and squad Rashford plays in, compared to the teams Rooney and Ronaldo played in. Incredible numbers for players of that age, but Rooney and Ronaldo benefited from having the slack from their off days, covered by the strong performance of other members of the squad (often each other) and as such, are rated higher and were slated less.
 

AgentSmith

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
1,555
Brilliant post, worthy of a post that gives the promotion to Full member.

You have done awesome job bringing all the stats, yes the initial point that he contributed more than Ronaldo and Rooney might be wrong but his record looks so brilliant when you out it next to Ronaldo and Rooney, 2 of our best players in last 20 years.
Feck, appreciate it man.

No longer will I have to worry about wasting my final post of the day at 4pm and then going into 8 hours of withdrawal afterwards.

Marcus' progress is one of the best things about being a United fan atm. A local boy brought up through the youth team who made it to the first XI and is now using his position of influence to improve the lives of millions of kids during a global pandemic because he never forgot what it was like to be one of them. Who also just happens to be scoring and assisting at a similar rate to Ronaldo and Rooney were at the same stage of their career.

We're blessed to have him.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
Feck, appreciate it man.

No longer will I have to worry about wasting my final post of the day at 4pm and then going into 8 hours of withdrawal afterwards.

Marcus' progress is one of the best things about being a United fan atm. A local boy brought up through the youth team who made it to the first XI and is now using his position of influence to improve the lives of millions of kids because he never forgot what it was like to be one of them. Who also just happens to be scoring and assisting at a similar rate to Ronaldo and Rooney were at the same stage of their career.

We're blessed to have him.
Also just one point as a reply for the huge post. Ronaldo and Rooney were starters from day 1 whereas RAshford for 2.5 years was in and out of the side, playing many games as a sub.

So for example, Ronaldo left ManUtd when he was 24, he played 24, played around 22000 mins, Rashford played 16500 mins. So if we go by Mins per Goal+Assist, they might be closer in stats than the initial stats you have posted.

Anyways that might be too much tedious work. Like you said, we are lucky to have him and graduate from ManUtd academy. It's brilliant to watch him improve every season.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
22,253
Also just one point as a reply for the huge post. Ronaldo and Rooney were starters from day 1 whereas RAshford for 2.5 years was in and out of the side, playing many games as a sub.

So for example, Ronaldo left ManUtd when he was 24, he played 24, played around 22000 mins, Rashford played 16500 mins. So if we go by Mins per Goal+Assist, they might be closer in stats than the initial stats you have posted.

Anyways that might be too much tedious work. Like you said, we are lucky to have him and graduate from ManUtd academy. It's brilliant to watch him improve every season.
And they played in considerably better teams. Not to say Rashford is better than either because he isn’t. But it should put the whining into perspective.
 

GoldTrafford99

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 28, 2020
Messages
296
You sure about that? We lost 1-3 and Rashford scored the 1.

Rashford was top scorer in the Champions League group stages.

FFS. How can 'fans' be this level stoopid?
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.

Minutes, my friend. Per minute on the pitch by age 23, Rashford has more assists and goals than Rooney, than Ronaldo, than Best, than Charlton.

Facts.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
Rashford was top scorer in the Champions League group stages.

FFS. How can 'fans' be this level stoopid?



Minutes, my friend. Per minute on the pitch by age 23, Rashford has more assists and goals than Rooney, than Ronaldo, than Best, than Charlton.

Facts.
When you have facts, you should post them. Just saying "He had better goals+assists per mins" is not the way to go. If you have data then just post it.
 

Mic

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 13, 2018
Messages
38
Also just one point as a reply for the huge post. Ronaldo and Rooney were starters from day 1 whereas RAshford for 2.5 years was in and out of the side, playing many games as a sub.

So for example, Ronaldo left ManUtd when he was 24, he played 24, played around 22000 mins, Rashford played 16500 mins. So if we go by Mins per Goal+Assist, they might be closer in stats than the initial stats you have posted.

Anyways that might be too much tedious work. Like you said, we are lucky to have him and graduate from ManUtd academy. It's brilliant to watch him improve every season.
Back in the day the Premier League was much stronger and so was European football by a lot, those were the days of Mourinho's Chelsea, Arsenal's invincibles, great Milan team, Guardiola's Barcelona, Madrid's Galacticos, Benitez Liverpool and so on. If it was now, Ronaldo and Rooney would be banging 60-70 goals a season.
 

AgentSmith

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
1,555
Rashford was top scorer in the Champions League group stages.

FFS. How can 'fans' be this level stoopid?



Minutes, my friend. Per minute on the pitch by age 23, Rashford has more assists and goals than Rooney, than Ronaldo, than Best, than Charlton.

Facts.
Mad you replied to my message and in the same post say this. I think I've said all I need to say so don't need to take up anymore space on here with more. I think we can both agree Rashford is a great player and we're lucky to have him, let's leave it at that.
 

BazzaBear

Definately Banned
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
3,377
Rashford was top scorer in the Champions League group stages.

FFS. How can 'fans' be this level stoopid?



Minutes, my friend. Per minute on the pitch by age 23, Rashford has more assists and goals than Rooney, than Ronaldo, than Best, than Charlton.

Facts.
I couldn't agree with you more that Rashford is one of our most valuable players.

But you reading AgentSmith's heartfelt - and genuinely trying to help you - post, and then just resort to continuing with your 'style' is just saddening.
 

eire-red

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
2,506
Am I wrong? He needs like 4 one on one chances to score 1. In a game where we were already 2-0 up it doesn't matter if he scored the 3rd. It hurts us when he blows his chances when the score is 0-0.

This isn't rocket science. Between him and our defense, its hardly a surprise we haven't won anything. For the record, I love the guy but you have to call a spade a spade.
Jeez man.. Rashford is playing as a winger, so his goals output this season is pretty good when you look at it like that. He's a 1 in 3 finisher, and to be honest, a higher ratio than that and you're talking Haaland/Mbappe levels of ability.

The guy has just scored one, created another, and looks to be well on course for another 20+ goal season, and however many assists along the way. Him and Bruno are the driving force of the team 9 times out of 10. Am I missing something here?
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
Am I wrong? He needs like 4 one on one chances to score 1. In a game where we were already 2-0 up it doesn't matter if he scored the 3rd. It hurts us when he blows his chances when the score is 0-0.

This isn't rocket science. Between him and our defense, its hardly a surprise we haven't won anything. For the record, I love the guy but you have to call a spade a spade.
Yes you are wrong. Every player misses easy chances, even one v ones. He doesn't need 4 1v1 chances to score 1. He slotted the first chance he got vs Chelsea when we smashed them 4-0, also he scored similar goal in 2016-17 season vs Chelsea. He also scored the first 1v1 he got vs Norwich last season. He has very good record in converting those chances. Just like every player, he also messes up few chances and few easy ones too.
 

roonster09

Hercule Poirot of the scouting world
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
36,515
Back in the day the Premier League was much stronger and so was European football by a lot, those were the days of Mourinho's Chelsea, Arsenal's invincibles, great Milan team, Guardiola's Barcelona, Madrid's Galacticos, Benitez Liverpool and so on. If it was now, Ronaldo and Rooney would be banging 60-70 goals a season.
Sure why not.
 

RkkMan

Full Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,179
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
Terrific post this.
Whilst you completely quashed the previous car crash of an opinion from the other guy these stats have painted Rashford in a very positive picture. They`ve in fact lessened any doubts I had on him and convinced me he`s going straight to the top. To have numbers this remotely close to two of the greatest players in our history(with room to grow into an even better player mind you) when they were the same age he is now factoring in they played in one of the best teams in our history under our greatest ever manager while Rashford has played in one of our worst ever teams, under 3 different managers and 2 and a half years under Jose who`s horrible with youth players is a testament of his talent. Utd fans(myself included) should appreciate him more than we do
 

Giggsy13

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
4,243
Location
Toronto
Even though Rashford’s misses are maddening, he still helps create and contribute elsewhere. Martial is a lost cause this season. I thought after he scored that brilliant goal against Southampton, we would see him go on a goal scoring run but sadly he’s looked even worse. The only solution at this point is to bench him and use him as a substitute when needed.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Terrific post this.
Whilst you completely quashed the previous car crash of an opinion from the other guy these stats have painted Rashford in a very positive picture. They`ve in fact lessened any doubts I had on him and convinced me he`s going straight to the top. To have numbers this remotely close to two of the greatest players in our history(with room to grow into an even better player mind you) when they were the same age he is now factoring in they played in one of the best teams in our history under our greatest ever manager while Rashford has played in one of our worst ever teams, under 3 different managers and 2 and a half years under Jose who`s horrible with youth players is a testament of his talent. Utd fans(myself included) should appreciate him more than we do
Very good point.
 

psychdelicblues

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
4,160
Location
Electric Ladyland
Even though Rashford’s misses are maddening, he still helps create and contribute elsewhere. Martial is a lost cause this season. I thought after he scored that brilliant goal against Southampton, we would see him go on a goal scoring run but sadly he’s looked even worse. The only solution at this point is to bench him and use him as a substitute when needed.
That's what Ole has done.
 

AngeloHenriquez

Full Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
13,405
Location
Location Location
Supports
Stevenage
Terrific post this.
Whilst you completely quashed the previous car crash of an opinion from the other guy these stats have painted Rashford in a very positive picture. They`ve in fact lessened any doubts I had on him and convinced me he`s going straight to the top. To have numbers this remotely close to two of the greatest players in our history(with room to grow into an even better player mind you) when they were the same age he is now factoring in they played in one of the best teams in our history under our greatest ever manager while Rashford has played in one of our worst ever teams, under 3 different managers and 2 and a half years under Jose who`s horrible with youth players is a testament of his talent. Utd fans(myself included) should appreciate him more than we do
I'm not sure that playing in a superior team means it is easier to boost your numbers and hear me out... Use Kane as an example, do we think he would have more goals at City/ Madrid/ Barca? I don't think so and the reason for that is that at Spurs he is the main man, so much goes through him, while he may get better service at the superior teams, he won't be the main man and I think in some cases they offset each other so I've never really bought the "Better team" argument. Some players are better being the main man and wouldn't work as well in a team of superstars and I think Rashford prefers being one of the main men (The main before Bruno)
 

AltiUn

likes playing with swords after fantasies
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
23,494
absolutely mega hype here after a good EL game. Rashford is a better prospect than Best? Best who won leagues and the European cup?
Rashford deserves a lot of his hype, despite his shortcomings, it's not like this Europa League game is an outlier for him. Even though he's not laden with trophies (yet) he has a fantastic record against top 6 opposition, has scored a hat trick in the CL, scored pretty consistently against PSG who are among Europe's elite. He's a proven big game player.

I do doubt he's a better prospect than Best but I can't really speak on something well before my time.

Also what an excellent post @AgentSmith
 

Ali Dia

Full Member
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
14,133
Location
Souness's Super Sub/George Weahs Talented Cousin
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
Sick post :)
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2021
Messages
872
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
This is an excellent post, and the person you were quoting is obviously taking it way too far in the other direction, but if anything, this just further reinforces how idiotic 90% of people in this topic are being.

Rashford has a very good record for someone his age, he's gotten better with every season, and he's a key player in this team right now. And yet we have clowns saying he wouldn't get into Leicester, he should be dropped for Diallo, he's the sole reason this team won't win big trophies, he "needs 4 chances to score 1" (pro tip, geniuses, a 20% shots-to-goals ratio is bordering on elite territory), etc. etc.
 

b82REZ

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
9,350
Location
Manchester
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
Bravo.
 

Isotope

Ten Years a Cafite
Joined
Mar 6, 2012
Messages
23,554
He might be 'factually and objectively wrong' but for Rashford to be within 20 goal contributions of our all time record goal scorer and one of the best players of all time with such a large sample size is remarkably, remarkably good.

In fact, I'm more convinced than ever that he's one last step away from being a truly world class player. He's frustrating as feck at the minute, but the talent is obvious.
If he plays less games, I'm sure he'd show much better performance. It's hard to perform 100% when you have to play every 3 days.
 

georgipep

Full Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2015
Messages
2,471
Location
Not far enough
I'm not sure that playing in a superior team means it is easier to boost your numbers and hear me out... Use Kane as an example, do we think he would have more goals at City/ Madrid/ Barca? I don't think so and the reason for that is that at Spurs he is the main man, so much goes through him, while he may get better service at the superior teams, he won't be the main man and I think in some cases they offset each other so I've never really bought the "Better team" argument. Some players are better being the main man and wouldn't work as well in a team of superstars and I think Rashford prefers being one of the main men (The main before Bruno)
I get your point but can you honestly say Ronaldo wasn't the main man at Real? You can argue that Kane wouldn't be but we can equally argue that Rashford would have been an equally important target for our players to pass and get him in good positions in a winning team a-la the 07/08 team.
 
Joined
May 22, 2017
Messages
13,122
This sounded unlikely and I trusted some brief research to prove it. So I started digging.

These stats are from this article - https://www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/how-marcus-rashfords-stats-after-250-man-utd-games-compare-to-wayne-rooney-and-cristiano-ronaldos/ - detailing how many goals and assists each player had accumulated after 250` appearances for United.

Rooney after 250 games - 104 goals, 58 assists = 162 total
Ronaldo after 250 games - 99 goals, 60 assists = 159 total
Rashford after 250 games - 83 goals, 51 assists = 134 total

Not looking great for your claim. But I suspected that Rashford had played his 250 games for United by a younger age than Rooney and Ronaldo, which indeed he had. Meaning your stat could still be true in fairness; Rashford could have scored more and assisted more for United at this point in his 23 years on planet Earth than Rooney or Ronaldo had done at the same juncture. So I dug a little deeper.

Marcus Rashford is 23 years and 111 days old a day after we played Real Sociedad away in the Champions League. His stats after that game are 89 goals and 51 assists equalling 140 total contributions.

Cristiano Ronaldo was 23 years and 111 days old five days after we played Chelsea in the the 2007/08 Champions League final. His stats after that game were 92 goals and 57 assists equalling 149 total contributions.
- If we include his Sporting numbers his total gets even bigger but we won't because its a few levels below the standard Rashford is competing at.

Wayne Rooney was 23 years and 111 days old six days before we played Fulham at home in the league in February 2009. His stats after that game were 90 goals and 50 assists equalling 140 total contributions.
-
A remarkable comparison with Rashed and a testament to the level Marcus is truly performing at; far beyond the level his misguided critics think he is at least. I am a huge fan of Rashford as a player (an even bigger fan of him as a person) and think he will be an integral part to our team for the next decade. This statistical analysis actually has nothing to do with him but a lot to do with you.

So it seemed like you got one right. Kinda. Not really given you said 'better' when it's dead even but pretty close so I was willing to let bygones be bygones. Then, however, I had the thought that it seemed unfair to ignore Rooney's career prior to United, given it was still at Premier League level (unlike Ronaldo's) and still applicable by your own specified criteria of their 'goals and assists records' relative to age. So I dug even further.

Including Rooney's two years at Everton, in which he got 17 goals and 1 assist, his tally rises to 158 total contributions.

Our comparative stats now look like this:

Rashford at 23 years and 111 days - 89 goals, 51 assists = 140 total
Ronaldo at 23 years and 106 days - 92 goals, 57 assists = 149 total
Rooney at 23 years and 117 days - 107 goals, 51 assists = 158 total

So no is the basic response to your claim. It was, as has become a theme throughout your posts on the Caf, incorrect. A further theme explicit in the vast majority of these contributions is an unbearable arrogance and rudeness to anyone who disagrees with your absolutist viewpoint. Constantly telling people they're 'not true fans' or they're 'stupid feckwits' or that they need to 'keep up' is unpleasant to read and, if you're being honest with yourself, must be unpleasant to write.

This unnecessarily confrontational style of expression also immediately ruins whatever point you might be making, no matter how interesting or well-articulated it be might be. In a different thread you posed the question of whether fans calling for Ole to go would also have sacked Sir Matt or Sir Alex during their difficult early years. That's a really cool idea and perfectly illustrates the issue with the immediacy of modern football in a social-media driven society; time is a commodity no longer afforded to managers because we're increasingly hard-wired for instant gratification. It could have made for a great discussion as Sir Matt and Sir Alex probably wouldn't have survived if they'd been struggling at a time when Twitter was around. But you called the people you were talking to idiots, you told them they didn't understand what they were talking about, that they weren't real fans, and proceeded to ruin any semblance of productive dialogue.

I hope by demonstrating that you were factually and objectively wrong in one of your posts you might take the time to consider whether you could be wrong in others. And if you could be wrong, as we are all going to be at times, then maybe you could refrain from expressing yourself in such an insolent and obstinate manner to allow for this. Like do you really believe Rashford is a better player at 23 than George Best was or are you just saying it to be controversial and provoke a response? An answer of yes to either option requires you to have a rethink. I'll stop digging now.

(I'm wrong constantly btw - I thought Haaland would be a waste of money when we were linked with him because we had Martial and that McTominay should be sold because he was Championship level; viewpoints worthy of a ban at this point. I just didn't tell anyone they were an idiot or a fake fan for correctly disagreeing with me)

*All these stats were calculated using Transfermarkt because that's what the original article used. Feel free to call me an idiotic feckwit of a fake fan if they're wrong but you would really be missing the point.
bloody good post.

I wouldn’t usually read such a long post, but it was well written.

Also good post about having an opinion on a player, and being proved wrong.

we all do it, just look at managers, and if they get it right with 50% of their transfers, then they are doing pretty well.

I’m not sure too many saw McT coming - especially as he looked like the victim of a Jose attention seeking message to the board.

I’ve always had faith in Rashford, and thought he would be a terrific player, and he’s got room to grow. It’s difficult when every game is forensically investigated, sometimes the bigger picture is lost and we can’t see how a player is growing.

isint is great that we can even compare Rashford to one of the greatest players that’s ever played the game, and United and England’s record goal scorer - that’s epic company.
 

iHicksy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
1,818
Rashford is currently much, much better than Sterling. I wonder how many people have watched Man city since lockdown kicked in last season and this?

I can tell you I have watched every City game in the league and Sterling is by far their worst attacker. I don't know what's happened to him, but put Rashford in that city team and he out performs Sterling by a mile. The city playing patterns are so well drilled that many of sterling's goals are tap ins nowadays. This isn't because he's making amazing runs, or beating players (which he was doing a couple of seasons ago - and back then I felt he was top 5 in the world). It's because the Pep's training tells players exactly where they need to be. Which is why he's putting up numbers still. If you actually watch city play he often breaks down their attacks and struggles to beat a man. Rashford with a structured system like that on top of his ability would be putting up pretty crazy numbers.
 

tjb

Full Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
3,309
Rashford is one of our best players and constantly produces for us. I don't think he should be as influential as he is for this team and I do feel having another winger taking on more responsibility might actually be helpful for him. In fact, having a rotation of wingers like City and Bayern have may be the best course of action. I don't think Rashford is CR7 and is not consistent in his creative play to hold a guaranteed position like Giggs did. He can become that player, but giving him that responsibility right now might be too much. Signing Sancho or Grealish would relieve him of being our main creative source outside of Bruno, which would benefit him immensely.

Outside of that, I feel he has been very good and I like the fact that he makes things happen. His decision making may not always be the best, but at the end of the day, he makes the runs and the dribbles to get himself into those positions. I like Greenwood and think he will be a future dynamite striker, but that's the last area in which I think he needs to work on to make himself a superstar. For me, ironically, I feel Greenwood is actually a better decision maker than both Rashford and Martial. He is also better keeping the ball and moving with the ball in tight spaces. As everyone knows, he is also a better finisher. I actually feel in an ideal situation, Greenwood would be a second striker as he doesn't yet know the right movements and positions to take to free himself of aggressive premier league defenders. He did an interview and stated his favourite player to watch was R9, and ironically after watching this interview, I could see the similarities ( well the older version of R9). I can see him turning into that. The older version didn't have the same level of pace and balance as the younger version had, but knew the moments to drive and where to drive from to enable him to score a lot of goals without coming off the shoulder of the last defender. If Greenwood can learn that, I'd actually take him over Haaland.
 

Giggsy13

Full Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2016
Messages
4,243
Location
Toronto
Rashford is currently much, much better than Sterling. I wonder how many people have watched Man city since lockdown kicked in last season and this?

I can tell you I have watched every City game in the league and Sterling is by far their worst attacker. I don't know what's happened to him, but put Rashford in that city team and he out performs Sterling by a mile. The city playing patterns are so well drilled that many of sterling's goals are tap ins nowadays. This isn't because he's making amazing runs, or beating players (which he was doing a couple of seasons ago - and back then I felt he was top 5 in the world). It's because the Pep's training tells players exactly where they need to be. Which is why he's putting up numbers still. If you actually watch city play he often breaks down their attacks and struggles to beat a man. Rashford with a structured system like that on top of his ability would be putting up pretty crazy numbers.
100% this. If Pep was offered a Rashford for Sterling swap, he’d take it. He’s regularly praised Rashford in the past as well. We don’t appreciate how much he is rated by other clubs and managers. If he went on the market tomorrow, all the big clubs in England and Europe would be lining up.
 

copen1945

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 20, 2020
Messages
746
100% this. If Pep was offered a Rashford for Sterling swap, he’d take it. He’s regularly praised Rashford in the past as well. We don’t appreciate how much he is rated by other clubs and managers. If he went on the market tomorrow, all the big clubs in England and Europe would be lining up.
Guardiola praised Allardyce before the West Brom game. He sings the praises for all opponents.
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
6,664
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.
Can you post minutes played as well though m
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
6,664
Rashford is currently much, much better than Sterling. I wonder how many people have watched Man city since lockdown kicked in last season and this?

I can tell you I have watched every City game in the league and Sterling is by far their worst attacker. I don't know what's happened to him, but put Rashford in that city team and he out performs Sterling by a mile. The city playing patterns are so well drilled that many of sterling's goals are tap ins nowadays. This isn't because he's making amazing runs, or beating players (which he was doing a couple of seasons ago - and back then I felt he was top 5 in the world). It's because the Pep's training tells players exactly where they need to be. Which is why he's putting up numbers still. If you actually watch city play he often breaks down their attacks and struggles to beat a man. Rashford with a structured system like that on top of his ability would be putting up pretty crazy numbers.
Traded him out in fantasy draft (sterling) when I saw him play this season.
 

Hammondo

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
6,664
100% this. If Pep was offered a Rashford for Sterling swap, he’d take it. He’s regularly praised Rashford in the past as well. We don’t appreciate how much he is rated by other clubs and managers. If he went on the market tomorrow, all the big clubs in England and Europe would be lining up.
Rashford is the opposite to the type of wide player pep likes though.