Rashford and Martial are a problem

[Lentwood]

No one said he is perfect, that doesn't mean he isn't good player, even better when you take his age into consideration.

People talk about this "overall game", then instead of just eye test, check the stats (as no one watches every game of every player), you would see he loses ball less than Sterling and Salah (unsuccessful touches and dispossessed) and then you check the dribbling stats, he makes more dribbles and at better success rate. So maybe it's not the player, it's the micro analysis and the expectations on players to be near perfect in every move is the problem.

So now, initially you start with "it's not about stats" this after asking for bunch of stats and then end the post saying "if he has better stats then he will got lot of leeway from me". If 20 goals + 10 assists is your benchmark then we won't have a good player in our squad and 98% of the players in the league won't be good enough and that includes the best players in the league,.

Just to show how ridiculous or how high the bench mark is, that 20 goals + 10 assists
- Mane did it 0 times
- Sterling did it 0 times
- Salah did it 1 time
- KdB did it 1 times (13 goals + 20 assists)
- Kane did it 0 times
- Son did it 0 times
- Bale did it 0 times
- Auba did it 0 times

Arguably the greatest PL player did it twice and the contender for that award, Ronaldo did it 0 times.

So in order to win your trust, Rashford should have a season that would put him among the best ever players to play in PL in the last 10-15 years.

Where do I say that he has to do that to win my trust? In fact, I think its fairly obvious I was using those stats as example of “insane” stats that I would accept unquestionably.

My point being of course, if Rashford posts insane stats, I’ll accept those stats as being proof he is very good

If his stats are mediocre/good/great then there HAS to be an element of the “eye test” because there is no conclusive way of giving a player a definitive rating based on stats. If there were, the game would be very easy for Scouts and Managers!

Let’s turn this argument around - I am making the statement “Lampard and Gerrard were miles better than Paul Scholes” - prove me wrong. The obvious trap being whatever you say there, I’ll just respond by saying Lampard and Gerrard had better stats, so they win (even though I don’t believe that for a second)

 

[roonster09]

Where do I say that he has to do that to win my trust? In fact, I think its fairly obvious I was using those stats as example of “insane” stats that I would accept unquestionably.

My point being of course, if Rashford posts insane stats, I’ll accept those stats as being proof he is very good

If his stats are mediocre/good/great then there HAS to be an element of the “eye test” because there is no conclusive way of giving a player a definitive rating based on stats. If there were, the game would be very easy for Scouts and Managers!

So to accept he is very good player unquestionably he should post insane stats that was achieved once or twice in last 10-15 years and even the best of the players struggled to put. OK

 

[Mr PG]

Rashford is very average in the league until he learns to pass the fecking ball. The few times he's decided to lift his head rather than try to be Mbappe, he's notched an assist more often than not.

 

[acnumber9]

Let’s turn this argument around - I am making the statement “Lampard and Gerrard were miles better than Paul Scholes” - prove me wrong.

They played different roles didn’t they? When Paul Scholes played in the advanced positions they did he scored plenty. He played one season behind Van Nistelrooy and scored 20 goals.

 

[Lentwood]

So to accept he is very good player unquestionably he should post insane stats that was achieved once or twice in last 10-15 years and even the best of the players struggled to put. OK

I can’t work out whether you’re deliberately misunderstanding to avoid answering or whether you just reply whatever you want regardless of the argument you are presented with.

As I said, in my opinion, as someone who regularly watches Rashford, my opinion is that he is middling/good at best.

Some posters have pointed out his stats are similar to Rooney and Ronaldo at 23. I pointed out these comparisons were flawed

I also pointed out you could also use statistics to show Rashford is average - here I highlighted how Martial’s statistics are virtually identical across virtually the same number of games yet nobody is defending him in this thread. I also pointed out players like Callum Wilson have a similar record over a similar numbers of games. For the record, the point here is that the statistics based argument is flawed.

I then went on to saw there are a small number of players who’s statistics are SO insane, you give them a free pass on all the “bad” elements of their game. I mentioned Bruno as one example. You could potentially also use someone like Ronaldo, Lewandowski or Salah at Liverpool. The argument here being that if a player is posting insane numbers, it becomes a moot point how good they are at other stuff.

Rashford’s stats are not insane. In fact, they are not even really out of the ordinary. Therefore, he IS going to get judged on his all-round contribution. In my opinion, his decision making is poor, his touch often is very erratic, ranging from the sublime to the very poor, his short passing is poor (although his long passing/crossing is better), he also doesn’t appear to have that killer instinct in the box or play with his back to goal and bring other players into it.

So you can keep highlighting one sentence in my posts and twisting the arguments but I think they are fair and there for all to judge.

And again, in summary, is Rashford “crap” - no...that’s not the argument here. Is he good enough to play 38 games in a title winning side? I would say the jury is out.

 

[roonster09]

I can’t work out whether you’re deliberately misunderstanding to avoid answering or whether you just reply whatever you want regardless of the argument you are presented with.

As I said, in my opinion, as someone who regularly watches Rashford, my opinion is that he is middling/good at best.

Some posters have pointed out his stats are similar to Rooney and Ronaldo at 23. I pointed out these comparisons were flawed

I also pointed out you could also use statistics to show Rashford is average - here I highlighted how Martial’s statistics are virtually identical across virtually the same number of games yet nobody is defending him in this thread. I also pointed out players like Callum Wilson have a similar record over a similar numbers of games. For the record, the point here is that the statistics based argument is flawed.

I then went on to saw there are a small number of players who’s statistics are SO insane, you give them a free pass on all the “bad” elements of their game. I mentioned Bruno as one example. You could potentially also use someone like Ronaldo, Lewandowski or Salah at Liverpool. The argument here being that if a player is posting insane numbers, it becomes a moot point how good they are at other stuff.

Rashford’s stats are not insane. In fact, they are not even really out of the ordinary. Therefore, he IS going to get judged on his all-round contribution. In my opinion, his decision making is poor, his touch often is very erratic, ranging from the sublime to the very poor, his short passing is poor (although his long passing/crossing is better), he also doesn’t appear to have that killer instinct in the box or play with his back to goal and bring other players into it.

So you can keep highlighting one sentence in my posts and twisting the arguments but I think they are fair and there for all to judge.

And again, in summary, is Rashford “crap” - no...that’s not the argument here. Is he good enough to play 38 games in a title winning side? I would say the jury is out.

So Salah posted insane stats once in his career, so he gets free pass.

And the usual "is he good enough to play in title winning side" argument. Well good day.

Edit: Not sure which point I didn't answer.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Is he good enough to play 38 games in a title winning side? I would say the jury is out.

You know how stupid that question is don’t you? Many a worse footballer than Rashford has been a first teamer in a title winning side.

 

[Lentwood]

You know how stupid that question is don’t you? Many a worse footballer than Rashford has been a first teamer in a title winning side.

So questioning whether a player is good enough is stupid now is it? I thought the objective was to win a title? Sure, you can hide one or maybe two average players in a title-winning side, I’ve made that point many times myself. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look to try and upgrade them.

It’s funny this forum because our fans line up to hammer Ole, Maguire, Lindelöf, AWB, Shaw, McTominay, Fred, Pogba, Dan James, Martial, De Gea, Henderson etc...and that’s all fine. If I pop into any of those threads now and say how average they are or how they have this flaw or that flaw I’ll have five people agreeing with me within the hour.

But criticise Rashford and it’s sacrilege for some posters. You post something negative about Rashford and straight away you’ve got two or three people firing back at you. It’s not like its an uncommon opinion either. I’d say about 50% of this forum just don’t rate him that highly.

We have to be able to critique our players on here fairly, otherwise we might as well just go full RAWK and claim all of our player are the best in the world in every position

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

So to accept he is very good player unquestionably he should post insane stats that was achieved once or twice in last 10-15 years and even the best of the players struggled to put. OK

Sorry to chime in but i don't think he disputed the fact that Rashford's numbers, in terms of end product, are very good, especially for a player of his age. He took it a bit too far with the player comparisons (Richarlison, Callum Wilson, Pedro Neto etc.) but his main point was that goals and assists alone can't always fully measure a player's impact on a good football side. It's like turning one of the main arguments in Rashford's favour, the "imagine what his numbers would be if he played in a better side" notion, on its head and look at it from the opposite perspective: How much does Rashford's current contribution help us in becoming a truly great football side? After all, he's a definite starter and, alongside Bruno, the prime mover for us in the attacking half. Up until now, we don't score goals for fun, we're not solid at the back and we still look far away from a proper title challenge when either Liverpool or City turn up the volume.

Now, this is admittedly unfair on Rashford since he keeps adding things to his game and, most of the time, he's the one who has to take on a new role when the numbers up front don't add up and Solskjaer is forced to tinker. It's also unfair that Rashford's numbers often get downplayed by some not because both Rooney and Ronaldo played in better sides but mainly because none of them had to carry the team on their shoulders. They were allowed to develop into the players they became in a safe environment and they picked up the baton when they were ready to do so. Rashford, on the other hand, is criticized a lot because he is the second most important (attacking/creative) player in a side that underperforms (compared to the world's expectations). And here begins the debate that Lentwood wants to have. Not necessarily to bash Rashford or claim that he's the problem but to discuss how are we going to move forward as a club.

I think his other comparisons are more accurate, especially Salah and Gerrard. The qualities that both Mane and Salah bring to the table go far beyond goals and assists. Their work between the lines, second balls, ball circulation, movement and decision-making, link-up play, their role in pressing tactics etc, all these are invaluable to Liverpool's current success. All these "little things" can make one of the least productive midfields in the world sustain a side that can tally 90+ points and make it to consecutive CL finals. That's why, i think, he said in one of his posts that we have players in the team who are underrated. People wonder what our best midfield is but one aspect of what makes the answer to this question seem elusive is that with our current front three, we need the mother of all midfields to gain consistency, to wipe out our excruciatingly bad "floor" performances and achieve title form.

The Gerrard paradigm is even more apt when it comes to the importance of goals/assist as the only measurement of ability. Someone mentioned earlier that Gerrard's numbers prove that he didn't have the teammates who would help him win the PL. Well, one of the best footballing minds in the world, Arrigo Sacchi, disagrees and he considers him a great footballer but not a great player. This is what he means:

Spoiler: Sacchi on Gerrard

“When I was director of football at Real Madrid I had to evaluate the players coming through the youth ranks. We had some who were very good footballers. They had technique, they had athleticism, they had drive, they were hungry.

"But they lacked what I call knowing-how-to-play-football. They lacked decision making. They lacked positioning. They didn't have the subtle sensitivity of football: how a player should move within the collective. And for many, I wasn't sure they were going to learn".

“You see, strength, passion, technique, athleticism, all of these are very important. But they are a means to an end, not an end in itself. They help you reach your goal, which is putting your talent at the service of the team and, by doing this, making both of you and the team greater.

"In situations like that, I just have to say, Gerrard's a great footballer, but perhaps not a great player."

It's funny that Scholes is exactly the "great player" that the great Italian is talking about.

Back to Rashford, i don't think Lentwood necessarily argues that he has to match Bruno's numbers. It's just that as we continue to remain far away from a proper title challenge only with numbers such as these one can be exempt from any criticism at all. That's something i agree with. Anyway, he can "defend" himself without any help. It's just my two cents on the matter.

 

[Silverman]

They both lack a real hunger imo.
Look at Haaland and Mbappe. They are animals on the pitch.
Rashford has shown glimpses of this hunger but not enough.
They both nearly play like they know they don't have to worry about competition for their places.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

They both lack a real hunger imo.
Look at Haaland and Mbappe.

So they lack hunger because they’re not as good as the two best young footballers in the world?

does Mane lack a real hunger because he doesn’t score as many as Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi?

 

[roonster09]

Sorry to chime in but i don't think he disputed the fact that Rashford's numbers, in terms of end product, are very good, especially for a player of his age. He took it a bit too far with the player comparisons (Richarlison, Callum Wilson, Pedro Neto etc.) but his main point was that goals and assists alone can't always fully measure a player's impact on a good football side. It's like turning one of the main arguments in Rashford's favour, the "imagine what his numbers would be if he played in a better side" notion, on its head and look at it from the opposite perspective: How much does Rashford's current contribution help us in becoming a truly great football side? After all, he's a definite starter and, alongside Bruno, the prime mover for us in the attacking half. Up until now, we don't score goals for fun, we're not solid at the back and we still look far away from a proper title challenge when either Liverpool or City turn up the volume.

Now, this is admittedly unfair on Rashford since he keeps adding things to his game and, most of the time, he's the one who has to take on a new role when the numbers up front don't add up and Solskjaer is forced to tinker. It's also unfair that Rashford's numbers often get downplayed by some not because both Rooney and Ronaldo played in better sides but mainly because none of them had to carry the team on their shoulders. They were allowed to develop into the players they became in a safe environment and they picked up the baton when they were ready to do so. Rashford, on the other hand, is criticized a lot because he is the second most important (attacking/creative) player in a side that underperforms (compared to the world's expectations). And here begins the debate that Lentwood wants to have. Not necessarily to bash Rashford or claim that he's the problem but to discuss how are we going to move forward as a club.

I think his other comparisons are more accurate, especially Salah and Gerrard. The qualities that both Mane and Salah bring to the table go far beyond goals and assists. Their work between the lines, second balls, ball circulation, movement and decision-making, link-up play, their role in pressing tactics etc, all these are invaluable to Liverpool's current success. All these "little things" can make one of the least productive midfields in the world sustain a side that can tally 90+ points and make it to consecutive CL finals. That's why, i think, he said in one of his posts that we have players in the team who are underrated. People wonder what our best midfield is but one aspect of what makes the answer to this question seem elusive is that with our current front three, we need the mother of all midfields to gain consistency, to wipe out our excruciatingly bad "floor" performances and achieve title form.

The Gerrard paradigm is even more apt when it comes to the importance of goals/assist as the only measurement of ability. Someone mentioned earlier that Gerrard's numbers prove that he didn't have the teammates who would help him win the PL. Well, one of the best footballing minds in the world, Arrigo Sacchi, disagrees and he considers him a great footballer but not a great player. This is what he means:

Spoiler: Sacchi on Gerrard

“When I was director of football at Real Madrid I had to evaluate the players coming through the youth ranks. We had some who were very good footballers. They had technique, they had athleticism, they had drive, they were hungry.

"But they lacked what I call knowing-how-to-play-football. They lacked decision making. They lacked positioning. They didn't have the subtle sensitivity of football: how a player should move within the collective. And for many, I wasn't sure they were going to learn".

“You see, strength, passion, technique, athleticism, all of these are very important. But they are a means to an end, not an end in itself. They help you reach your goal, which is putting your talent at the service of the team and, by doing this, making both of you and the team greater.

"In situations like that, I just have to say, Gerrard's a great footballer, but perhaps not a great player."

It's funny that Scholes is exactly the "great player" that the great Italian is talking about.

Back to Rashford, i don't think Lentwood necessarily argues that he has to match Bruno's numbers. It's just that as we continue to remain far away from a proper title challenge only with numbers such as these one can be exempt from any criticism at all. That's something i agree with. Anyway, he can "defend" himself without any help. It's just my two cents on the matter.

He disputed the stats, asked for PL stats only, when they were as good as other great players, he then changed it to "How would other midtable players look if they play for ManUtd" and that Rashford stats are not good enough even when he is in top 8 or top 5 in Goals + Assists this season.

On your question that what's Rsahford current contribution in making this side great, well you can ask the same question for any good/very good/great player till their team needed all the players to become great. What was Ronaldo and Rooney's contribution to make Manutd great till 2006? What's Mane role in making Liverpool great in till 2007, what was Sterling, KdB role in making City great till 2007. The list is endless.

Thing is one player wont make the team great, it should be better than sum of the parts and that's something on the manager and also having better players in all positions or players who compliments each other.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

So questioning whether a player is good enough is stupid now is it? I thought the objective was to win a title? Sure, you can hide one or maybe two average players in a title-winning side, I’ve made that point many times myself. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look to try and upgrade them.

Good enough to win a title is a stupid question yes.
Most title winning teams have five or six good players and a sprinkle of some world-class ones.

Just look how losing VVD has utterly fecked Liverpool, players who looked WC next to him like TAA suddenly look utter trash.

 

[roonster09]

Good enough to win a title is a stupid question yes.
Most title winning teams have five or six good players and a sprinkle of some world-class ones.

Henderson was good enough to be a PL winner whereas Gerrard wasn't good enough. That's the logic we have to follow now.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

He disputed the stats, asked for PL stats only, when they were as good as other great players, he then changed it to "How would other midtable players look if they play for ManUtd" and that Rashford stats are not good enough even when he is in top 8 or top 5 in Goals + Assists this season.

On your question that what's Rsahford current contribution in making this side great, well you can ask the same question for any good/very good/great player till their team needed all the players to become great. What was Ronaldo and Rooney's contribution to make Manutd great till 2006? What's Mane role in making Liverpool great in till 2007, what was Sterling, KdB role in making City great till 2007. The list is endless.

Thing is one player wont make the team great, it should be better than sum of the parts and that's something on the manager and also having better players in all positions or players who compliments each other.

Fair enough, i must have missed something in the last few pages.

I believe that both Rooney and Ronaldo had a broader skill set than Rashford. It's the same with the other players you mentioned. Now, i believe that Marcus can improve, Lentwood maybe doesn't (although he admits he can be wrong) but with his current skill set, i agree with Lentwood that he must do better than 8 goals in 24 PL games for us to get where we want to be.

 

[roonster09]

Fair enough, i must have missed something in the last few pages.

I believe that both Rooney and Ronaldo had a broader skill set than Rashford. It's the same with the other players you mentioned. Now, i believe that Marcus can improve, Lentwood maybe doesn't (although he admits he can be wrong) but with his current skill set, i agree with Lentwood that he must do better than 8 goals in 24 PL games for us to get where we want to be.

He has scored more open play goals than anyone in the squad, same as Bruno, only 7 players scored more than that in the league.

If you add assists then he is in ever better position. So yeah, Rashford can do better but he is least of our problems. If everyone steps up and contribute, we would be in much better position.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Henderson was good enough to be a PL winner whereas Gerrard wasn't good enough. That's the logic we have to follow now.

It’s just silly logic, like saying if you switched him out with Sterling or when Navas was playing every week, or with Albrighton, or Sharpe, McClair etc then suddenly that team wouldn’t win a league.

Another example is Chelsea in 2015, when they won a league with William in the wing forward position, he contributed 2 goals.
Sané had 10 goals & 10 assists in 2019 when City reached 98 points and scored 95 goals. Rashford will easily beat that (in both goals and assists) this season for a far worse team, who win less, create less and score a shit load less.

Illogical nonsense.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

It’s funny this forum because our fans line up to hammer Ole, Maguire, Lindelöf, AWB, Shaw, McTominay, Fred, Pogba, Dan James, Martial, De Gea, Henderson etc...and that’s all fine. If I pop into any of those threads now and say how average they are or how they have this flaw or that flaw I’ll have five people agreeing with me within the hour.

Maybe that should be a hint to you in fairness.

 

[Silverman]

So they lack hunger because they’re not as good as the two best young footballers in the world?

does Mane lack a real hunger because he doesn’t score as many as Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi?

Im not talking about ability. Im talking about hunger. Theres a difference.

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

Im not talking about ability. Im talking about hunger. Theres a difference.

I want to believe that even Rashford's harshest detractor can't possibly deny that the lad wants nothing more than to win titles with his boyhood club. For Martial, i think it's his style that makes people believe this more than anything.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Im not talking about ability. Im talking about hunger. Theres a difference.

It's pretty intangible as to whether Mbappe is just that talented, or if he's that good cause he's "hungrier".

 

[King Azaz the Unabridged]

Let’s turn this argument around - I am making the statement “Lampard and Gerrard were miles better than Paul Scholes” - prove me wrong. The obvious trap being whatever you say there, I’ll just respond by saying Lampard and Gerrard had better stats, so they win (even though I don’t believe that for a second)

You're extremely good at ignoring arguments that don't suit your agenda so I have no trouble believing this is exactly what you'll do, but 1) they don't actually have miles better stats, once you account for Gerrard and Lampard taking 40 and 30 PL penalties to Scholes's 1. And more importantly, 2) it's a completely valid opinion to have to think those two were better than Scholes. Just like it's completely valid and grounded in fact to say Rashford's tangible impact on the pitch up to the age of 23 is very much comparable with two of United's best recent players.

I'm going to try and spell this out one more time: you are the one taking the stronger position in this argument by saying Rashford isn't good enough to play for a title-winning team (and / or Leicester, for some of the others agreeing with you). The people defending him in this topic are comparing him to Ronaldo, Rooney, Salah and Sterling to point out that he's effective enough on the pitch to warrant comparison with them (not that he's a better player, apart from that one guy who's definitely on the wind-up), which suggests your claim is nonsense.

And no amount of eye tests because you watch him every week (you're on a Manchester United forum - everyone does, which I'd wager is the problem, because no one on here microanalyzes Sterling the same way) will change the facts.

I also pointed out you could also use statistics to show Rashford is average - here I highlighted how Martial’s statistics are virtually identical across virtually the same number of games yet nobody is defending him in this thread

People have pointed this out throughout Martial and Rashford's careers before this season, because their stats have been uncannily similar. People have stopped doing it this season because Martial has fallen off a cliff and Rashford has continued to produce at a good pace. Fairly obvious stuff.

I also pointed out players like Callum Wilson have a similar record over a similar numbers of games.

This is also not at all the gotcha you seem to think it is.

Rashford's numbers were average from 2016 to 19, because he was young, inconsistent and largely a squad player playing on the wing. Which means his numbers over his entire career are similar to a player like Wilson.

1) he's obviously stepped it up since then, getting better every season - scoring and assisting more goals last season than he did in 18/19, and on course to beat both his goals (from open play - he did pad his numbers from the spot last year) and assists again this season.

2) these numbers, inconsistencies and all, are still very good for a player of his age, and comparable to Rooney and Ronaldo's (comparable. Not better)

The crux of the argument here is that Rashford has been one of United's two best players this season, and this thread is stirring crap up for no reason, attracting idiots.

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.

Like this utter weapon, who's been spun around in circles by everyone for a few pages now, their shite argument ripped to shreds, and has the nerve to say I'm the one misunderstanding what's being written.

Back to Rashford, i don't think Lentwood necessarily argues that he has to match Bruno's numbers.

If Lentwood did make that argument, he or she would be told Rashford is already virtually matching Bruno's numbers from open play.

Then they'd switch to some other kind of eye test.

 

[roonster09]

If Lentwood did make that argument, he or she would be told Rashford is already virtually matching Bruno's numbers from open play.

Then they'd switch to some other kind of eye test.

That's exactly what has happened in last few pages.

One poster says Rashford can't match Salah and Sterling productivity, when someone pointed out that he matched them in last 18 months then the argument was changed to "Salah and Sterling peak season numbers". Then other poster wanted only his PL stats, when the stats showed he was among top 5 in Goals + Assists then came up with ridiculous "He should get at least 20 PL goals + 10 assists" as he didn't pass my eye test, which is ridiculous as that number was achieved rarely and not even PL great players achieved that. And the biggest BS is "didn't pass eye test", load of crap. As if these posters watch and micro analyze every player.

"But Rashford loses possession a lot and runs in blind alley" when stats show he loses possession less than Salah and Sterling (dispossessed and unsuccessful touches) and also he completes more dribbles at better success rate. This Eye test is nothing but preset agenda and how every move should be fit in to prove how right they are.

 

[Eire Red United]

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.

Crazy that Ronaldo and Rooney were so young when we won the champions league- Ronaldo was the best player in the world and Rooney wasn’t much behind him. If Rashford gets anywhere near their levels we’ll have a serious player on our hands. Interesting stats btw!

 

[::sonny::]

Martial is a 8 goals/season player

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Lolz

 

[BenitoSTARR]

 

[U99ted]

Rashford is a phenomenal problem to have.

 

[King Azaz the Unabridged]

Rubbish player against a deep-lying defence yet again.

Head down, can't beat a man, runs down blind alleys, takes shots from stupid angles.

Bin him off.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

Needs 4 chances to score 1.

 

[G4stars]

Can always get some Wizard of Oz pantomime work. Rashford could do with a brain and Martial needs more heart

 

[Kag]

Martial is playing himself out of the club at the moment. Worst he’s ever been. He doesn’t even look dangerous anymore.

 

[thesheriffjw]

Martial IS the problem

The whole dynamic of the forward line changes when he is in the side. He is lazy, sulky, disinterested and selfish


Greenwood should have sta

 

[Drainy]

Martial wouldn't have survived 3 seasons with Sir Alex as manager.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

Still time in the 2nd half to prove me wrong but I'm starting to think Martial needs to go.

His performances this season, his effort has been disgraceful.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Can always get some Wizard of Oz pantomime work. Rashford could do with a brain and Martial needs more heart

Can we give the courage to Lindelof then?

 

[TheNewEra]

Martial is a waste of space, he just casually jogs everywhere. No decisive runs just come short and plays a 3 yard pass.

Doesn't press, it's like starting with 10 men.

Martial is a defenders dream, zero threat.

 

[Pexbo]

Martial is off in the summer and he knows it.

 

[SER19]

Martial has been a disgrace to the club and teammates in recent weeks. I understand that just sounds like typical online ranting but I've watched United for a very long time and performances like tonight have no place near a club like united.

 

[AgentSmith]

Martial is off in the summer and he knows it.

We’ll struggle to get even a decent price given the wages he’s on and the form he’s in atm.