Rashford and Martial are a problem
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
What are you even talking about? I was only trying to demonstrate that Rashford is actually a very good and unappreciated player, by our own supporters it seems like.
Rashford is quality though, being young he has his off moments but nothing compared to Martiall. The answer to the striker problem is right in front of us; sell Martiall and Pogba and break the bank to get Erling Haaland.
The saying - “there are lies, damned lies and statistics” has never been more apt than when comparing Rashford, Rooney and Ronaldo solely on their goalscoring records at 23
First and foremost, Rooney started playing PL football at 16 and had racked up over 50 PL appearances for Everton by the time he turned 18. Many of these games he would have featured for a handful of minutes only. Unsurprisingly, his goalscoring record during this period wasn’t spectacular, if you take his age out of the equation.
It’s also important to remember that Rooney was more of a scorer of great goals than a great goalscorer in his younger years. He was more likely to be making a sliding challenge at fullback or knocking a 50yard pass from centre midfield than he was to score a tap-in at the back post. It wasn’t really his game. It sounds strange to say it given he is Utd and England’s all-time top scorer but his game wasn’t really about goals until his mid-20s
Also, if you look solely at Rooney’s first 100 games for Utd vs Rashford’s first 100 (they started at a similar age), Rooney is well ahead.
Similarly, comparing any goalscoring record to Ronaldo at 23 is ridiculous. Ronaldo was an out-and-out old fashioned winger for the majority of his time at United. I think I am right in saying Ronaldo didn’t even score a goal in the CL until he had made some crazy number of appearances and now he is the all-time record goalscorer. What Ronaldo did have in his early years was unbelievable feet, pace, trickery and a better delivery than he was often given credit for. He only turned into the absolute goalscoring machine that he was known as later in his career at about 23/24. Any comparisons before that are deliberately misleading.
So, I don’t really like doing this because a PL goal is a PL goal, and who is to say one is more important than another...but let’s take a look at Rashford’s 8 goals in 24 this season, if we’re analysing this stuff in detail. Four of those eight goals have come in three games against Sheffield Utd, Brighton and Newcastle - teams in the bottom 5. One of those goals came in a 9-0 victory against a horribly demoralised, 10-man Southampton team. One was almost certainly an own-goal, albeit a very important one, against Wolves. I’m fairly certain that shot was headed well wide but we won’t really know for sure because of the short trajectory from Rashford’s foot to the Wolves defender.
Last season was his best season in PL history, scoring 17 goals in 31 games, which coincided with him being virtually the sole penalty taker in a season we won (I think) a record number of penalties. Yes, before anybody starts, this is relevant because the point is, Rashford has consistently posted a solid but unspectacular record of roughly one goal every 3 games and the only time he has performed above this was when he was on penalty duty. This year, take away the penalties and lo and behold...back to the one in three - in the PL in any case, since that’s what counts.
Now above and beyond all this, I actually find it slightly insulting to two of our greatest ever players to be compared with Marcus Rashford. No amount of massaged statistics or flawed comparisons is going to convince me of what I have sat and watched in OT week-in, week-out.
I was lucky enough to attend virtually every home game (and the odd away game) that Rooney and Ronaldo played for United. I have also seen the majority of Rashford’s home games live, although I stopped going the year of Jose’s meltdown. I have, of course, continued to watch on TV.
Some things in football can’t be quantified by numbers. For example, can you compare Scholes vs Gerrard vs Lampard by looking at goals and assists? Can you compare Ferdinand vs Terry vs Sol Campbell vs Maguire based on headers won, tackles made or blocks? Can you compare Wan-Bissaka with Ashley Cole or Gary Neville by comparing % of tackles won? I’d say “absolutely not” to all of the above. Football isn’t played on Excel, things happen on a football pitch that will always only be apparent to a good judge. Yes, I would include myself in that - but you don’t need to be a good judge to know Rooney and Ronaldo where far better than Rashford. You just need to have watched the three of them play on a regular basis.
And this for me is the crux of the issue. Why do die-hard Utd fans like me line up to knock Rashford? In my case, I’d say its certainly not because I’m negative, in fact, I would generally say in percentage terms my posts have been overwhelmingly positive and supportive over the last three years, with a few exceptions.
The reason I knock Rashford and get so wound up by it is the hyperbole and the hype around a player I think is effectively no more than a solid PL footballer who is now approaching his peak years and shows little to no signs of every really kicking on and being the special player we hoped he could become when he burst onto the scene.
It wouldn’t bother me but compare the treatment of Rashford with Martial and you see how media bias is conning our fanbase. Their records are almost identical in professional football. Never mind comparing Rashford with Ronaldo and Rooney...why not compare him with a teammate who has basically had an identical career to date? Because it doesn’t suit the agenda or the narrative that’s why. One is (perhaps rightly) roundly written off whilst the other is a “world class talent” who is supposedly on par with our best ever players.
See, that’s how statistics work. If you’re going to frame them to pretend Rashford is amazing, then why not point out his PL goals per game record is identical to Callum Wilson, who has been playing for Bournemouth and Newcastle in that time?
I’d love Rashford to prove me wrong. I think the work he does off the pitch is great but unfortunately I can’t factor that in when judging his footballing contribution. I would like to see improved decision making, better ball retention, more intelligent movement, more defensive efforts, better passing in tight areas against low-blocks. All stuff that is difficult to assess based solely on stats, but stuff my eyes and experiences tell me he is miles away from world-class at. That’s before we even get down to brass tax and say that even if we’re solely going to judge him on his goals and assists, he needs to start delivering more as he hits his peak to stay on the so-called Rooney/Ronaldo trajectories
First and foremost, Rooney started playing PL football at 16 and had racked up over 50 PL appearances for Everton by the time he turned 18. Many of these games he would have featured for a handful of minutes only. Unsurprisingly, his goalscoring record during this period wasn’t spectacular, if you take his age out of the equation.
It’s also important to remember that Rooney was more of a scorer of great goals than a great goalscorer in his younger years. He was more likely to be making a sliding challenge at fullback or knocking a 50yard pass from centre midfield than he was to score a tap-in at the back post. It wasn’t really his game. It sounds strange to say it given he is Utd and England’s all-time top scorer but his game wasn’t really about goals until his mid-20s
Also, if you look solely at Rooney’s first 100 games for Utd vs Rashford’s first 100 (they started at a similar age), Rooney is well ahead.
Similarly, comparing any goalscoring record to Ronaldo at 23 is ridiculous. Ronaldo was an out-and-out old fashioned winger for the majority of his time at United. I think I am right in saying Ronaldo didn’t even score a goal in the CL until he had made some crazy number of appearances and now he is the all-time record goalscorer. What Ronaldo did have in his early years was unbelievable feet, pace, trickery and a better delivery than he was often given credit for. He only turned into the absolute goalscoring machine that he was known as later in his career at about 23/24. Any comparisons before that are deliberately misleading.
So, I don’t really like doing this because a PL goal is a PL goal, and who is to say one is more important than another...but let’s take a look at Rashford’s 8 goals in 24 this season, if we’re analysing this stuff in detail. Four of those eight goals have come in three games against Sheffield Utd, Brighton and Newcastle - teams in the bottom 5. One of those goals came in a 9-0 victory against a horribly demoralised, 10-man Southampton team. One was almost certainly an own-goal, albeit a very important one, against Wolves. I’m fairly certain that shot was headed well wide but we won’t really know for sure because of the short trajectory from Rashford’s foot to the Wolves defender.
Last season was his best season in PL history, scoring 17 goals in 31 games, which coincided with him being virtually the sole penalty taker in a season we won (I think) a record number of penalties. Yes, before anybody starts, this is relevant because the point is, Rashford has consistently posted a solid but unspectacular record of roughly one goal every 3 games and the only time he has performed above this was when he was on penalty duty. This year, take away the penalties and lo and behold...back to the one in three - in the PL in any case, since that’s what counts.
Now above and beyond all this, I actually find it slightly insulting to two of our greatest ever players to be compared with Marcus Rashford. No amount of massaged statistics or flawed comparisons is going to convince me of what I have sat and watched in OT week-in, week-out.
I was lucky enough to attend virtually every home game (and the odd away game) that Rooney and Ronaldo played for United. I have also seen the majority of Rashford’s home games live, although I stopped going the year of Jose’s meltdown. I have, of course, continued to watch on TV.
Some things in football can’t be quantified by numbers. For example, can you compare Scholes vs Gerrard vs Lampard by looking at goals and assists? Can you compare Ferdinand vs Terry vs Sol Campbell vs Maguire based on headers won, tackles made or blocks? Can you compare Wan-Bissaka with Ashley Cole or Gary Neville by comparing % of tackles won? I’d say “absolutely not” to all of the above. Football isn’t played on Excel, things happen on a football pitch that will always only be apparent to a good judge. Yes, I would include myself in that - but you don’t need to be a good judge to know Rooney and Ronaldo where far better than Rashford. You just need to have watched the three of them play on a regular basis.
And this for me is the crux of the issue. Why do die-hard Utd fans like me line up to knock Rashford? In my case, I’d say its certainly not because I’m negative, in fact, I would generally say in percentage terms my posts have been overwhelmingly positive and supportive over the last three years, with a few exceptions.
The reason I knock Rashford and get so wound up by it is the hyperbole and the hype around a player I think is effectively no more than a solid PL footballer who is now approaching his peak years and shows little to no signs of every really kicking on and being the special player we hoped he could become when he burst onto the scene.
It wouldn’t bother me but compare the treatment of Rashford with Martial and you see how media bias is conning our fanbase. Their records are almost identical in professional football. Never mind comparing Rashford with Ronaldo and Rooney...why not compare him with a teammate who has basically had an identical career to date? Because it doesn’t suit the agenda or the narrative that’s why. One is (perhaps rightly) roundly written off whilst the other is a “world class talent” who is supposedly on par with our best ever players.
See, that’s how statistics work. If you’re going to frame them to pretend Rashford is amazing, then why not point out his PL goals per game record is identical to Callum Wilson, who has been playing for Bournemouth and Newcastle in that time?
I’d love Rashford to prove me wrong. I think the work he does off the pitch is great but unfortunately I can’t factor that in when judging his footballing contribution. I would like to see improved decision making, better ball retention, more intelligent movement, more defensive efforts, better passing in tight areas against low-blocks. All stuff that is difficult to assess based solely on stats, but stuff my eyes and experiences tell me he is miles away from world-class at. That’s before we even get down to brass tax and say that even if we’re solely going to judge him on his goals and assists, he needs to start delivering more as he hits his peak to stay on the so-called Rooney/Ronaldo trajectories
That’s the point of the comparison though isn’t it? People are pointing out that he is young and could still improve. Doesn’t mean he will but there’s plenty of reason to believe he will improve.
Last edited:
All we can do is speculate about the future, but what I see in Rashford’s future is a footballer who will mature and will better understand when and when to go for all out power on his shots and when to back off taking on a defender.
I’m calling it now: Rashford will go on to become a United and England great. Legend is probably beyond his reach, however.
I’m calling it now: Rashford will go on to become a United and England great. Legend is probably beyond his reach, however.
Rashford is an absolute standout. His numbers alone would indicate that. I am equally puzzled some of the criticism he gets. Guardiola plays an uncharacteristically conservative game against United, especially because of Rashford. He has burned City more than once. However, Guardiola has stockpiled offensive players quite unlike Rashford. He has opted for Davil Silva clones, in Foden, Bernerdo, Gundogan, and Torres. His only player with pace, Sane, has been replaced with Torres.
And this is why those stats that you're hand-waving away* need to be brought out. So people with agendas get called out for talking nonsense.
*Funny also that you'll post line after line explaining why Rooney and Ronaldo's goalscoring records weren't far ahead of Rashford's at the time... and then go on to dismiss his own record as "one in three" with no mention of his own position, age, or anything other than "I watch games at OT and I've decided he's average"
When the stats and the eye test tell 2 different stories I know which one I'm going to trust. If he kicks on and actually reaches the level that people think he is currently at when they trot out those sort of comparisons, there will be no need to legislate for when he is being rightly criticized.
There are stats and there is reality. the chasm isn't an insignificant one so much so that admitting it is there isn't unreasonable. The 2 players you mentioned have had high watermarks which Rashford will do extremely well to reach.
In other words, "the reality doesn't match what I claimed, so instead of admitting it, I'll just make up my own instead"
The entirely subjective one? You might want to try that eye test on Sterling and Salah more often then as all round performances aren’t their speciality.
Rashford may not hit the heights they have. It would be nice to see him play in a team as good as they have the last few years before finding out though. The point still remains, there isn’t a wide player in the league producing more than Rashford has the last 18 months.
And this all ignores the fact that Rashford has several years on both of them.
precisely what those who cherry pick stats and making disingenuous comparisons seem to be doing then?
You're comparing players who have had lulls to one who is supposedly in your view outperforming them, never mind that he ahs to hit anywhere near their peaks to even be compared to them. If you applied the eye test correctly you wouldn't need to bring in Salah and Sterling because them playing worse won't make Rashford play better anyway. Does that mean you admit that he still has quite some way to go?
A lull? It’s over an 18 month period. Over the same 18 month period he also produced more than Son and Mane. Can he still improve? He’s 23 years old so I certainly hope so. Regardless of that, he’s already a very good player who bares comparison to the very best in his position.precisely what those who cherry pick stats and making disingenuous comparisons seem to be doing then?
You're comparing players who have had lulls to one who is supposedly in your view outperforming them, never mind that he ahs to hit anywhere near their peaks to even be compared to them. If you applied the eye test correctly you wouldn't need to bring in Salah and Sterling because them playing worse won't make Rashford play better anyway. Does that mean you admit that he still has quite some way to go?
Slightly out of date so he’s probably slipped down a little but he’s been doing it big games too.
https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...-vs-the-premier-league-big-six-since-2019-20/
This is a player cut down during a great spell by a broken back for Christ’s sake.
When comparing peaks it may be fair to wait until Rashford hits his. If we want to compare at the same age we can. I have a feeling Rashford wins that too.
Edit: Salah’s best scoring season by 23 was 12. In Switzerland. Sterling’s was 11.
Last edited:
"someone compared rashford with salah the other day when he has yet to hit even sterling level productivity"
*sees stats showing Rashford hitting Sterling and Salah levels of productivity*
"no, not that kind of productivity. i meant my eye test"
You are exactly the kind of clown I've been ranting about this entire thread.
Rashford has scored or assisted many important goals. Ronaldo was called flat track bully till 2007 season too. Rashford on the other hand has very good record vs top 6.
On your other point, why do die hard Utd like you are negative on Rashford, well answer is simple. You made bs claim long back and sticking to it with so much mental gymnastics to prove how you were right all the time.
You are good poster except when you post about Rashford. For some reason you turn into one of those agenda drviedriven LUHG accounts.
On Rashford season,
In CL
Winning goal vs PSG
Hattrick vs Leipzig
Equaliser vs PSG in the home tie
Europa league,
Assisted first goal vs Sociedad, played beautiful pass for second and scored third.
In PL
Goal vs Brighton to make it 2-1
Vs Newcastle, scoring was 1-1. He won penalty which Bruno missed. Then in the last 10 mins, he made 2 assists and scored a goal to make it 4-1
Assisted winner in the injury time vs Southampton, to make it 3-2
Scored vs West Ham to make it 3-1
Scored equalising goal vs Sheffield United and also 3rd goal to make it 3-1.
Scored opening goal vs Leicester
Scored injury time winner vs Wolves
Set up winning goal vs Burnley.
Assisted first goal vs Everton in 3-3.
FA Cup
Assisted first goal and scored second goal vs Liverpool.
I mean, you made a claim that was soundly refuted, and ran to hide behind "the eye test" to avoid having to admit you pulled that claim out of your ass.
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?
Starts with "doesn't even hit sterling level of productivity" when presented with stats for goals and assists, those are cherry picked stats and we have to go with eye test. Then what exactly did you mean by Sterling level of productivity?
if you cant compare a player yet to hit his peak with a player supposedly past it, you also can't necessarily compare those 2 players at the same age thereby implying that he will be as good/better. Especially in a world when there is a game and a context beyond just stats which prima facie obviously won't tell you everything. I get the defence against perceived criticism but the reasoning is quite a disingenuous one.
Unless you have trouble reading/ comprehending or have room temperature IQ, you know exactly what I and a few others meant. it is as dumb as doing a like for like comparison where if anything that should mean he is judged even more harshly. You wouldn't want that now would you? ^
I must have missed when he matched Sterling at his best or was on track to win POTY. You do realize City want to upgrade both Sterling and Jesus?Starts with "doesn't even hit sterling level of productivity" when presented with stats for goals and assists, those are cherry picked stats and we have to go with eye test. Then what exactly did you mean by Sterling level of productivity?
City don't want to upgrade on Sterling. So Rashford isn't as good as Peak Sterling season. As usual goal posts are moved.
It isn't. the point is still the same one for those who don't want to admit that he could be doing better/more. what was the point of making those comparisons in the first place?
Well I'm sure almost every ManUtd fan would agree that Rashford can so better than he did, that doesn't mean he is doing poorly.
I don't know who and why they made comparison. All I saw was you made a mocking post saying how he can't produce same numbers as Salah and Sterling when he had matched them in last 18 months.
i wasn't referring to only this 18 month window obviously. I made that post because someone wanted to know whether Best was matching Rashford for productivity. Something to that effect.
Even Salah won't match his peak numbers and Sterling won't match his either. Mane won't match Sterling and Salah peak numbers too. Those peak numbers have 0 relevance to what's happening this season or how good they are now.
I’ve no idea what point you’re trying to make here. You weren’t happy with comparing the here and now so what else could we compare? A past that heavily benefits more mature players? Players playing in considerably better teams at that.
You’re right, there is a context behind stats but all you have is your heavily subjective eye test. Do you seriously watch Sterling and Salah? If people think Rashford is a bad finisher they should watch Sterling and see how bad it can get and still be considered a top player.
They’re just having an 18 month lull.
The only problem is the idiots who make such threads.
Yeah that's what I don't get. If we are comparing spell of 10-15 games, then we can say it's a purple patch. From the start of last season, he is matching their numbers but somehow he shouldn't be compared to them because we are not as good as Liverpool or City.
Players who have hit a peak are persisted with because of that and the proof of what they can do though. What is there to dispute about that? When you have scored 40 goals in a season - even if you missed as many - it buys you a lot of leeway. Especially when your performances in general haven't fallen off a cliff.
It is not a question of being 'happy' with comparing the present productivity of the respective players but what the implication is when you do so, which is just a lot of obfuscation.
It's fairly axiomatic that players are judged both on stats as well as the 'eye test'. For players who are wasteful or make poor decisions often because of how many risks they take the expectation to produce is higher. You only have to look at Ronaldo and how people felt he was still not playing as well as in 06/07 when he scored 42 goals to understand that. And yes I know how wasteful Sterling is which is why City fans themselves often wonder if they should upgrade on him.
How many times did he score 40 goals in a season? And how is it relevant to how good or bad they are this season?
General performance didn't fall of a cliff because most people watch only highlights and check numbers, whereas they micro analyze our players, highlighting every move. Rashford gets so much shit for missed chances and then you see people praising Salah and Sterling as if they don't miss chances. And then the biggest pile of nonsense "Elite players need just 1 chance to score" when they always top "Biggest chances missed" stats every season.
So it's Sterling at his best now? Okay, let's look at Sterling's two best seasons for City (in terms of productivity), 17-18 and 18-19. 48 goals and 35 assists in 97 games (7665 minutes of football.) Marcus Rashford's 19-20 and 20-21 seasons (so far) has him at 39 goals and 23 assists in 82 games (6277 minutes of football.)
That's 0.49 goals and 0.36 assists per game for Sterling, a goal or assist every 92 minutes. Rashford has 0.47 goals and 0.28 assists per game, a goal or assist every 101 minutes. That's pretty damn close. Close enough to say he's matched Sterling at his best (in terms of productivity)? Probably not, but Sterling had the benefit of playing in one of the best teams the league has ever seen while putting up his numbers.
But then again, you didn't actually say "Sterling at his best", you just said Sterling.
performances don't quite happen in a vacuum, so I would say quite relevant.
It's getting pretty tedious when the major bone you have to pick is semantics, especially when it should be quite obvious exactly what I meant. My bad I guess.
As far as playing in better teams is concerned it can go both ways, you won't necessarily produce better stats just because you're a cog in a better team.
Martial is a problem for us. Soon to be deadwood with 250k salary.
What a nothing post.That is a testament to the post you made where it seems as though even the bleeding obvious is lost on you and has to be pointed out.
I did you a solid and compared current Rashford to the Greatest of Sterling, and all you do is moan? You're the one who claimed Rashford hadn't matched Sterling. Sterling is still very much a player in his peak, despite his recent slump. As such, it's only natural that people compare their recent numbers.
As for the bolded, that excuse doesn't really fly with Sterling. He served as one of City's main attacking outlets and benefited greatly from their tactics.
Its cute to watch the mental gymnastics.That is a testament to the post you made where it seems as though even the bleeding obvious is lost on you and has to be pointed out.
Rollingstoned1:. Rashford can't even match Sterling productivity, forget Salah
Others:. Here are the numbers for last 18 month, Rashford has done as well if not better than both
Rollingstoned1. Well I meant eye test even though I made a BS claim and talked about productivity
Others: Well he has consistently matched 2 of the best wide players in 18 months, so not a purple patch
Rollingstoned1: Yeah what about their peaks, did he match their peak numbers. What about decision making, giving away the ball and all that.
It's hilarious watching all the twists and turns, moving goal posts and mental gymnastics.FYI, Rashford's dribbling success rate is better than Sterling and Salah, he also loses possession less via unsuccessful touches and dispossessed than Salah and Sterling. There you go, one more failed eye test.
You are the one making a complete show of yourself, child. Not the right thread to be talking about other people's reading comprehension and IQ
there is no moaning there other than what you want to see, those stats do show that Sterling has produced more than Rashford in a better team no less. And you omitted the previous season too where he scored 30 goals.
It is not an excuse but a fact, people admit city are a better team and want to claim that that counts in Rashford's favor while also saying that City's team is built to get the best out of Sterling which is patently false. Before Bruno arrived you could claim that was how we were set up too, so do you want to judge rashford even more harshly?
That's not what happened though, people want to make half-assed comparisons while projecting and making straw man arguments probably just to avoid admitting that rashford could be playing much better.Its cute to watch the mental gymnastics.
Rollingstoned1:. Rashford can't even match Sterling productivity, forget Salah
Others:. Here are the numbers for last 18 month, Rashford has done as well if not better than both
Rollingstoned1. Well I meant eye test even though I made a BS claim and talked about productivity
Others: Well he has consistently matched 2 of the best wide players in 18 months, so not a purple patch
Rollingstoned1: Yeah what about their peaks, did he match their peak numbers. What about decision making, giving away the ball and all that.
FYI, Rashford's dribbling success rate is better than Sterling and Salah, he also loses possession less via unsuccessful touches and dispossessed than Salah and Sterling. There you go, one more failed eye test.
Ftr most of the criticism of him comes from people saying they think he could be doing more, it has naff all to do with what Salah/Sterling.
People make bs comparisons and the ones calling it out are the fools.
Call someone else a child when you make weak-sauce arguments, real mature for someone who demonstrates a dyslexic prowess in understanding what is being written. Happens when your wish to lord it over someone is greater than the ability/ desire to think and respond.
Go ahead and quote them, people who think he can't do any better this season and he is playing to the best of his abilities or he is playing near perfect game (except that Gold trafford guy).
Apart from that Gold trafford guy, the only poster who makes straw man arguments, moving goal posts or barely address the posts that doesn't fit agenda is you.
Edit: Btw, that's exactly what has happened and I even quoted all your posts too. From talking about productivity to eye test to comparing peak seasons.