First good game we had when Zlatan was out. Arsenal poor, Boro poor, Chelsea we have no idea as the ref ruined it, WBA poor. Maybe wait a few games eh?
10
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 46
- Goals
- 28
- Assists
- 9
- Yellow cards
- 8
- Status
Big difference is that In those games Rashford was expected to shine in a system devised to accommodate Zlatan and his strengths. But in a system devised to accommodate Rashford's strengths like vs. Middlesbrough and today vs. Chelsea, he was amazing!
You can't expect Rashford to just slide in to replace Zlatan in system made for Zlatan, especially after he was played on the wings for whole season, mate players aren't LEGO blocks.
Obviously, we did not miss Ibra today. But I would still worry if he were to leave and no striker was brought in.
fecking loved that little cheeky line about resting Ibra from Mourinho.
Look who is first to this thread after this match.
Zlatan still has a part to play, he just doesn't suit games where we need to break on the counter.
Writing him off after one game is rediculous, he is better for the games where teams sit back.
Writing him off after one game is rediculous, he is better for the games where teams sit back.
At least nice to know we can play good without him, something that had only been happening agains bottom Championship clubs in the FA Cup before today.
This guy again.
So much bullshit as usual in your post.
Rashford has had plenty of chances, difference is he finally took it today.
Add that the rest of our players actually stepped up for once and Chelsea being absolute shite contributed massively to that.
What was said?
Ruud van Nistelrooy situation all over again.
Was asked about how good a performance it was given he had to rest players and he started grinning like a Cheshire cat and talking about how 'maybe he didn't need to rest anybody and just picked the side he thought would win'.
First time we play well without him and it's a Ruud situation?
Agreed, and it's why I've said repeatably that I wouldn't be upset if he left. I think it'd allow us to move on and improve as a team, rather than being reliant on him.
Long-term it'll naturally make sense for us to focus more and more on Rashford because of his age and budding talent, but I still think it'd be risky for Ibrahimovic to be dropped now in favour of Rashford.
Rashford was superb today and is likely going to be a fantastic talent, but he's (naturally) not going to produce displays like that every week - whether he'll be as clinical as Ibra immediately is debatable. Nevertheless, the system/style we played today really, really suited Rashford, and the only way he's going to get better up to is by playing up top. A bit of a conundrum in that regard, although admittedly a welcome one.
Rashford was superb today and is likely going to be a fantastic talent, but he's (naturally) not going to produce displays like that every week - whether he'll be as clinical as Ibra immediately is debatable. Nevertheless, the system/style we played today really, really suited Rashford, and the only way he's going to get better up to is by playing up top. A bit of a conundrum in that regard, although admittedly a welcome one.
The team is better without him.
You need to understand some things first. Against those teams when we played Rashford in Zlatan's system, we we're hoofing the ball upfront and we expected Rashford to have a same hold up as Zlatan which is ridiculous. Strong play with heavy hold up and aeral game isn't his fortee.This guy again.
So much bullshit as usual in your post.
Rashford has had plenty of chances, difference is he finally took it today.
Add that the rest of our players actually stepped up for once and Chelsea being absolute shite contributed massively to that.
And wow you're actually contemplating that the reason he was this good today is because Chelsea were shiit? Let me tell you something, Chelsea didn't choose to be shiit today, it was our game play and immense threat from our fast forwards that made them look like shiit.
His 10 minutes after being subbed on showed the different impact he has though as well. Rashford when he was alone up top only really had that one run but was a lot more quiet. He can't play alone yet for a whole game. Ibra comes on and the hold up play and physicality instantly changes. He's still vital for us in terms of actually creating chances consistently and a new striker if he is to leave is vital since Rashford isn't ready. Rashford should get more chances to start up top alongside Ibra though in a 4-4-2.
With a large sample size, it's nowhere near that.
We had Rooney, Ronaldo and Saha. Ronaldo was on the cusp of being the world's best and Rooney was Rooney.
Martial/Rashford for their talents currently aren't at that level yet.
RVN was a star for us, but we had a team in transition. He didn't prevent us from winning.
It'd be a massive risk to go into next season without a striker brought in if Ibra leaves.
The big fella deserves to go straight back in hopefully we have seen a glimpse with Rashford though. Rashford with Griezmann off him sounds nice to me!
Apart from today, when? Arsenal? No. Boro? No. Chelsea? Feck knows as the ref ruined that. WBA? No.
Based on one game, Jib. Superb stuff.
He's still a fantastic player.
The way I see it we have two different teams for the two different types of games we need to play.
The first one is a fast paced, gritty, determined team that defends well and ferociously and breaks on the counter with great pace. That's the one we saw today. It doesn't work all the time though. We don't usually have much possession in these types of games and so we don't need Ibra because it doesn't play to his strengths. So we play Rashford, because that's the type of game he is suited to.
The second is the more common one with Ibrahimovic. These are games against the lesser teams, teams we should be beating and dominate possession, playing in their half with us playing very close to their box. This game suits Ibra more and Rashford less, and so we use Ibra in these situations and Rashford out wide where he can whip crosses in. This should work against most teams but sometimes it doesn't, hence our draws.
Our squad overall can fit the bill for both these types of games, but ideally you want a squad full of players that can fit both these types of games. We can't play the first game all the time because it won't always work and Ibra doesn't suit it. But it's good that we have him because he suits the 2nd type of game very well and he's scored a lot of goals playing that way.
The way I see it we have two different teams for the two different types of games we need to play.
The first one is a fast paced, gritty, determined team that defends well and ferociously and breaks on the counter with great pace. That's the one we saw today. It doesn't work all the time though. We don't usually have much possession in these types of games and so we don't need Ibra because it doesn't play to his strengths. So we play Rashford, because that's the type of game he is suited to.
The second is the more common one with Ibrahimovic. These are games against the lesser teams, teams we should be beating and dominate possession, playing in their half with us playing very close to their box. This game suits Ibra more and Rashford less, and so we use Ibra in these situations and Rashford out wide where he can whip crosses in. This should work against most teams but sometimes it doesn't, hence our draws.
Our squad overall can fit the bill for both these types of games, but ideally you want a squad full of players that can fit both these types of games. We can't play the first game all the time because it won't always work and Ibra doesn't suit it. But it's good that we have him because he suits the 2nd type of game very well and he's scored a lot of goals playing that way.
"Zlatan's system"? LMFAO. We played the same system like we did with Zlatan, fecking unbelievable you blame Zlatan for all the bad games Rashford had. Maybe you now understand the importance of other players stepping up, make things a lot easier for the striker.
I didn't say the only reason for Rashford having a good game was because of Chelsea being shit, Rashford had a great game and having teammates stepping up and Chelsea being shite certainly helped more then the other way around.
Agreed. Why is it so important that Rashford has to be number 1? It's just good that there's 2 alternatives. Mourinho sees that Rashford is continuing to develop and is slowly taking the chase to lead the line. I actually think he's benefited from having Ibrahimovic in the team. It looks a bit like he does a couple of things just like Ibrahimovic. This is why I hope Ibrahimovic will stay for at least 1 more season. The more he stays, the more Rashford can learn and the more time he'll have not to rush it.
Hope to see more from this 'gem'. But Ibrahimovic has still very much to offer, people shouldn't forget this just because Rashford is starting to play well.
Very good post. I'd also like to see them play together in a partnership. 4-4-2 would be really good for both of them.
Definitely a bit of - Agenda 1 Zlatan Fanboys 0, today.
I think the early goal helps the agenda a lot today though, tbf. In how it shapes the match.
I do prefer the pace & the mobility to watch us play like this though, than the ''Zlatan System'' - is that the one where only he is allowed to score, btw
I think the early goal helps the agenda a lot today though, tbf. In how it shapes the match.
I do prefer the pace & the mobility to watch us play like this though, than the ''Zlatan System'' - is that the one where only he is allowed to score, btw
First you need to calm down and accept that not everyone has the same opinion as you. Secondly I never said that it was Zlatan's fault exclusively we're bad at time.
Zlatan system yes, when we play a hold-up and link-up game through him hence him often dropping deep to have a pointless touch with the ball leaving 16 yard box empty, system where hoofing the ball upfront was an integral part of our attack due to his aerial prowess.
Unlike those times, today we opted for quick counter, fast transition and pace upfront which kept Chelsea defenders always on the edge due to the through balls that both Rashford and Lingard could and eventually Rashford did make use of.
But instead of Ibra scoring, Rashford scored. Difference?
We were a threat entire game, always keeping Chelsea defenders on egde they couldn't keep their back line near the half line as per usual, blazing fast transition and no unnecessary dropping deep from our strikers just to touch the ball. Also no fancy flicks and touches, just plain football.
do you not think the way we played today was a lot different? more energy, more pressing, more threat behind
(admittedly with the benefit of the early goal, totally alters how the game is played for me, helped us a lot)
Think its pretty obvious that we should be playing Ibra and Rashford/Martial as a front 2 tbh
My question was about 'where he's the only one allowed to score'. So you're meaning that as long as the game is played like today, you're ok with Rashford being the only one allowed to score? That was my question, I didn't say anything about the game being better or worse.
Agreed. But why hasn't Mourinho tried a 4-4-2? Is it because of Pogba? Or the lack of wingers?
I suppose I think we would have more people scoring more goals. I dunno, maybe we wouldn't.My question was about 'where he's the only one allowed to score'. So you're meaning that as long as the game is played like today, you're ok with Rashford being the only one allowed to score? That was my question, I didn't say anything about the game being better or worse.
It is a bit snarky - but ''Zlatan System'' does kinda sum what we have seen this season.
Thing is, most teams start with only 1 striker these days in whatever formation, system they play. I definitely don't see a pair of Ibra & A. N. Other ever working.
edit - because you lose a man out of the MF but are still not pressing enough 'up top'
Today's match is what we have been talking about for months. Zlatan slows us down.
As much as I loved Rashford's performance today, I must say that Lingard had a big part in it. His immensive workrate during the game and giving the opponent defenders a hard time was something that helped young Rashford. I'm no expert but that's the way I saw the game at least.
People having an agenda towards another player isn't getting any respect in my book.
Making up new terms as "Zlatan's system" and constantly shitting on him (even though he has been the best player this season) just makes you look like a fool.
You clearly having trouble understanding the game of football - but that's usually the case for someone who hasn't been playing himself or on a very low level.
"They" tend to not develop the deeper understanding of the game which is needed when you watch high level teams.
And maybe I shouldn't blame you for that, it's just annoying as hell reading it when it all comes down to one player all the time.
The same player that you are blaming for another player's failures.
Similar.
No way are you 26.
Spot on, completely. Two of them just seemed to work so well as a front 2 didn't they? I was a bit surprised how good they were, tbh.
No need to be condescending, just provide me with facts as I did.
I always gave him the credit for his good performances and criticised him for his bad performances as well.
No play is below praise and above criticism in my book.
Easiest thing to do is to call someone agenda driven and inexperienced in the game of football when in you're in the lack of any valid argument.
Have a good day.
- Status