Rashford v Welbeck

[Jam]

Rashford is the far better footballer but Welbeck offered more out of form than Rashford does.

When Rashford is off he offers nothing and negatively impacts our link up play and structure. Welbeck for all his faults even if he had a bad day with the ball at his feet he still gave something to the team with his work rate, pressing and positioning.

Rashford shone brighter and is still only 24 but after the 18-24 months he has had I’m worrying it’s not just bad form.

 

[TOPREDIAMNOT]

The fact we are having this discussion shows how bad "Rashy" is these days.

Rashy 3 years ago was better than Welbeck. Last 2 years about the same

 

[DOTA]

Rashford at his best was miles better than anything Welbeck ever produced. Rashford at his worst is considerably worse than anything Welbeck has.

 

[Kag]

Rashford is a much better goalscorer; that isn’t even up for debate.

Rashford’s bottom level is so bad, however, that it does make for an argument that Welbeck is more reliable and perhaps more helpful to the overall dynamic of a team, particularly in bigger games.

Welbeck streets ahead of Rashford in terms of attitude, too.

 

[Kag]

Rashford at his best was miles better than anything Welbeck ever produced. Rashford at his worst is considerably worse than anything Welbeck has.

Perfect summary.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

its a wierd debate. one was a functional player in a very good team. one was a flair player and a key goal scorer in a dysfunctional and in the last 12 months terrible team. rashford might not get into that united team as much as welbeck did, because welbeck was a foil for better players. rashford would be competing with some of the worlds best flair players

 

[JJ12]

They are both shite and neither should have regularly got games for the so called biggest club in the world. Welbeck atleast had the decency to always give his all on a fraction of the wages we give to Rashford, Rashford on the other hand..

With Welbeck regularly leading your line you will never win anything. The same can be said for Rashford.

The usual hyperbolic nonsense you expect on here

 

[jesperjaap]

Rashford is definately the better player.

But we are talking in Welbeck about a player in my eyes we never really saw more than a good squad option in a side that had Teve, Rooney etc. Where as in Rashford we are talking about someone that is meant to be in a star that hasnt really soldified himself as a big player in several pretty shambolic United sides, that is the difference.

If we are talking about international performances, Welbeck did far better than Rashford has and not, as soon as England have a good side, Rashford isnt getting a game, even though injuries and form have played apart.

The debate is maybe a strange one but the thing for me with the debate is though a better player,r really we should always have been talking about Rashford as a really godo squad option not a potential star as he is nowhere close to the quality of some of our youngsters before, that is how faw we have fallen

 

[stw2022]

Rashford is the far better footballer but Welbeck offered more out of form than Rashford does.

When Rashford is off he offers nothing and negatively impacts our link up play and structure. Welbeck for all his faults even if he had a bad day with the ball at his feet he still gave something to the team with his work rate, pressing and positioning.

Rashford shone brighter and is still only 24 but after the 18-24 months he has had I’m worrying it’s not just bad form.

Good post

 

[El Jefe]

This isn't a debate at all and is disrespectful to Rashford. I say this as someone who isn't the biggest fan of Rashford but he's far better than Welbeck.

 

[Quagmire Maguire]

The usual hyperbolic nonsense you expect on here

One liner replies like yours with no debate or discussion because someone puts up an opinion that you don't agree with is what has come to be expected on here. You had zero input to make but just had to post to up your post count and show your a top red.

So to put this back on topic, do you believe Rashford or Welbeck would regularly lead the line for the current Bayern, Real, PSG, Liverpool or City team's? Those are the teams I believe United should be on a level with and settling for mediocrity isn't what I believe this club should be doing. Welbeck ended up at Brighton and I won't at all be surprised to see Rashford end up at a similar level club once this novelty of him being our golden boy has worn off.

By the way I hope I am wrong, I would LOVE Rashford to prove my opinion ridiculous and go on to be a world beater but I have simply never rated him. A moment's player who no longer has moments. I never rated Welbeck either but like I said before, he atleast always gave his all. How any United fan can be happy watching a stroppy Rashford plod around the pitch whilst we are being out played and dominated by pretty much every team we come up against is beyond me.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

Rashford has been lucky enough to have had the team set up to play to his strengths the last 3 years whereas Welbeck was a better team player. If I wanted to play counter attacking football I'd pick Rashford. If I wanted to play a more functional team I'd pick Welbeck.

 

[Ole's screen]

The thing is I don’t remember what Welbeck was like out of form. I just remember him missing some very important 1v1’s.

I have a feeling we might be overrating his out of form performances because the team itself was much better and he didn’t have to perform at his best for us to win, whereas when Rashford doesn’t perform, he sticks out since he’s a much more important member of the team.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

I love Rashford, but Welbeck was better for us as a team.

Rashford has only had some moments with Ole when you feel he is key to the teams performance.

I feel people underestimate Welbeck. He was really good in sides going for the title. Not amazing under Moyes, but both Persie, Kagawa, Mata and Rooney sucked then as well.
LVG should never have sold him.

 

[Ole's screen]

I love Rashford, but Welbeck was better for us as a team.

Rashford has only had some moments with Ole when you feel he is key to the teams performance.

93 career goals isn’t really “only had some moments“ territory. He had big moments under both LvG and Jose as well.

 

[Paul_Scholes18]

93 career goals isn’t really “only had some moments“ territory. He had big moments under both LvG and Jose as well.

He had a fantastic start under LVG, but under Mourinho he was pretty disappointing. Both him and Martial we hoped for more with.
Still ended second one year and Sanchez did not improve things.

In Oles first full season Rashford was a star and did alright, but we still struggled to get enough wins. Had some good wins vs City on the counter though.

 

[SalfordRed18]

Honestly close this thread it's a joke.

 

[TenonTen]

Both bang average but Welbeck edges it for me.

Goldstein is a clown but that is what his role is I assume:

He's the windup guy who argues against the callers just for the sake of arguing while Cundy takes the piss and bigs up the caller pretending to support them. This works well in terms of entertainment. Their equation with that Klobby caller in particular was very popular.

Sometimes, Goldstein is way too pedantic trying to force debates and ends up behaving like a pathetic manchild.

 

[Real Madras]

Danny Well-Wide over Marcus Rashford?

I know Rashford was poor last season but do me a favour.

 

[harms]

Rashford was a better player and at his absolute best he even looked like he was close to stepping up to a proper world class category. He didn’t make that step and now it’s hard to believe that he even was there at any point of his career.

That said, I’m not 100% sure if Rashford would’ve played more often than Welbeck if both were at United under Fergie. Welbeck’s skillset made him the perfect tool for Fergie’s tactical shenanigans — Rashford isn’t hard-working and tactically astute enough to seamlessly fill in that role even with the added goalscoring bonus (Chicha also always scored more…).

Still, if it’s a question about both players being at their best, Rashford was clearly a better player.

 

[Bastian]

Rashford is clearly the better player - when in form. And they're quite different. But I loved Welbeck and if he hadn't gone through an injury-plagued career, I think he'd have been a very good squad player for us. Injuries aside, I'd have preferred him to Rashford because with Welbeck you had a workhorse who grafted for the team. There's a reason Fergie started him, when we were deep in the CL instead of Rooney.

 

[Dr Foo]

Welbeck was a better team support player, while Rashford at his best was a match winner (at his worse, quite pointless).

 

[DeGea’sFeet]

Wouldn't be possible to answer, Rashford not due his prime for another 3 or 4 years.. he's only 24 and I still have faith he will get better.

realistically this is the age where world class players in those kinds of positions and with his attributes start putting in the consistency and numbers to become world class.

Salah, breakthrough season was around this age, similar with Ronaldo probably 23, similar every other type of player that wasn’t Messi or Mbappe.

 

[Tavern in the town]

Good grief.

 

[Ødegaard]

Welbeck for me if we're talking strikers.
If we're talking overall then I'd argue Rashford had way more potential to become a prolific goalscorer, and that gets headlines more than what Welbeck offered us.
I think it's fair to say either was more talented as that comes down to what you value, but neither was or is good enough to be a main man at a club competing for trophies.

 

[DeGea’sFeet]

It’s a hard question to answer and also one that’s easy to view with tinted lenses.

Welbeck was around at a time when expectations and standards were much much higher, and was never viewed as potentially world class. Also he was never really more than a squad player, who we never wanted to be a regular starter.

Rashford broke into the team when expectations were lower but he has shown greater potential and ability, greater high but then greater lows simply due to the expectations.

Prime Welbeck doesn’t even come close to Rashford on form who hasn’t even hit his prime and if that was his prime and as good as it will ever be then Rashford will be the bigger disappointment but have had the better prime.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Rashford would be far more endearing to the fanbase and be twice the player if he had even a third of Welbeck's workrate.

 

[TOKUGAWA-X]

Give me a fit Welbeck anyday over the current Marcus.

Danny is smart, can time runs, can score, can tap-in, headers.

The only thing that stopped him was the injuries, he couldve been a great striker.

Marcus, i dont even know what he is good at.

 

[lsd]

Absolute joke question. Rashford is infinitely better than Welbeck its not even close

 

[Robbie Boy]

Some fans at our club aren't good at letting players go, once they leave. I mean, imagine banging on about Danny fecking Welbeck about 8 years after he leaves, and has done absolutely nothing of note.

Thank Christ some of you don't support Chelsea; imagine having to have watched what the likes of KDB, Salah and Lukaku have done since leaving. That's not even mentioning the likes of Tomori, Livrmento, Abraham etc.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

This is an elastic response back to the harsh critics Danny copped after he left United. You can tell when Jack Wilshere is sticking up for his mate and claims Goldstein is siding with trolls. Clear as day they're trying to legacy / rep manage a former teammate.

Alas, Welbeck was very limited a player, an average finisher who had to switch roles to being a link up man when it was clear he was lower than Championship level at what a striker needs to do (score goals).

Worked hard, honest lad but better than Rashford? Not in this universe.

 

[Forevergiggs1]

Danny Well-Wide over Marcus Rashford?

I know Rashford was poor last season but do me a favour.

.
It is possible to score less goals but be more beneficial to the team. If it was just about scoring then Rashford takes it but that shouldn't be the only criteria.

 

[Withnail]

The thing is I don’t remember what Welbeck was like out of form. I just remember him missing some very important 1v1’s.

I have a feeling we might be overrating his out of form performances because the team itself was much better and he didn’t have to perform at his best for us to win, whereas when Rashford doesn’t perform, he sticks out since he’s a much more important member of the team.

What I remember is that Welbeck put in a shift but couldn't finish his dinner. He'd be through on goal and I wouldn't even get excited. I used to be surprised when he did score. He was never United quality, really.

 

[stw2022]

Asking whether you want a player who couldn’t hit a bull’s arse with a banjo but would always put in a shift and be industrious Vs someone who on form has a better goal scoring record but when off form contributes far less and p.s hasn’t been close to form for 12-18 months - isn’t a stupid question at all. Despite the “Pathetic. Close the thread” protest’s

 

[Tavern in the town]

.
It is possible to score less goals but be more beneficial to the team. If it was just about scoring then Rashford takes it but that shouldn't be the only criteria.

Given Welbeck is a striker and Rashford is a goal scoring wide player (as in, that’s his job, not that he’s been great at it lately), surely goals are the biggest decider.

 

[Leftback99]

I don't know why many dismiss the question so easily. Even their goal records are similar:

PL records (from Transfermarkt):
Rashford 204 games (13,521 mins) 59 goals (6 pen) - 0.35 non penalty goals per 90.
Welbeck 274 games (14,987 mins) 56 goals - 0.33 non penalty goals per 90.

The main thing that has held Welbeck back is injuries.

 

[Cecc]

I'm not big Rasfhord fan, but still he is twice the player Welbeck was. D.Welbeck was a pathetic player and few years back I couldn't wait to see him gone alongside Cleverley. Just like Lingard and McTominay now. Actually I was celebrating when he left and it was even more joyful that he go to Arsenal, because he is such a bad footballer.

 

[wolvored]

In a nutshell, Rashford was better and now worser than Welbeck.

 

[kelvinwong2026]

3 years ago we were debating "would you trade Rashford for Harry Kane?"

 

[Ole'sgunnarwin]

Both looked promising at the start, both have regressed. Both had injuries that they never looked the same afterwards. Weren't sure if they were wide players or front players. (Welbeck more central) Nothing in it for me, although I do think people are forgetting Welbeck around 2012, he was keeping Chicarito and Berbatov out of the team for quite a while. Rashford looks stuffed, hopefully he can turn it around but we'll see.